s.  f- 


Digitized  by  the  Internet  Archive 
in  2016  with  funding  from  . 
Duke  University  Libraries 


https://archive.org/details/evolutionbycoope01rein 


EVOLUTION  BY  CO-OPEBATION 


BY  THE  SAME  AUTHOR. 


NUTRITION  AND  EVOLUTION. 

‘ A volume  of  real,  deep  interest  . . . must  be 
recognised  as  worthy  to  rank  in  first-rate  criticism.’ 

Daily  Chronicle. 

‘ Contains  many  good  ideas.  Its  tendency  is 
in  harmony  with  the  most  recent  views  of  biological 
research.’ — Dr.  Bruno  Oetteking  in  the  Frank- 
furter Zeitung. 


SURVIVAL  AND  REPRODUCTION. 

1 Toujours  du  plus  haut  interet.’ — La  Nature. 

‘ The  author’s  propositions  are  certainly  inter- 
esting and  worth  further  testing  by  research.’ — Db. 
W.  Breitenbach  in  the  Neue  Weltanschauung. 


EVOLUTION 

I I 

BY  CO-OPERATION 


A STUDY  IN  BIO-ECONOMICS 


BY 

HERMANN  REINHEIMER 

AUTHOR  OP 

‘ NUTRITION  AND  EVOLUTION  ’ AND  ‘ SURVIVAL  AND  REPRODUCTION  ’ 


LONDON 

KEGAN  PAUL,  TRENCH,  TRUBNER  & CO.  LTD. 
BROADWAY  HOUSE,  68-74  CARTER  LANE,  E.C. 

1913 


TO 

MY  FATHEK 


PREFACE 


Some  of  my  readers  will  have  heard  of  the  once  famous 
‘ Vestiges  of  Creation,’  a book  that  appeared  anonymously 
in  1844,  created  a great  sensation,  ran  through  twelve 
editions,  and  the  authorship  of  which  was  at  last  ac- 
knowledged by  Robert  Chambers.  The  book  dealt  with 
evolution,  or  ‘ Progressive  Development,’  the  principle 
which  the  author  said  that  he  was  bringing  forward 
‘ on  this  momentous  occasion.’  We  read  in  Chambers’ 
‘ Encyclopaedia,’  1867,  that  ‘ by  Darwin  the  chief  argu- 
ments of  the  “ Vestiges  ” are  used  with  great  scientific 
caution.’ 

Chambers,  who  declared  that  Lamarck  rested  too 
much  on  the  well-known  effect  of  use  or  exercise  in 
strengthening  and  enlarging  an  organ  and  of  disuse  in 
atrophying  it,  regarded  evolution  as  a process  analogous 
to  ordinary  gestation.  Given  time,  space,  and  geological 
and  physiological  factors,  as  well  as  a ‘ variative  power 
connected  with  the  will  and  dispositions,’  and  the  impulse 
originally  imparted  to  the  forms  of  life  has  gradually 
advanced  them  by  generation.  ‘ Let  it  not  be  said,’ 
he  declares,  ‘ that  the  phenomena  concerned  in  the 
generation  of  bees  may  be  very  different  from  those 


VI 


PREFACE 


concerned  in  the  reproduction  of  the  higher  animals. 
There  is  a unity  throughout  Nature  which  makes  the 
one  case  an  instructive  reflection  of  the  other.’ 

Here,  then,  we  have  a pregnant  reference  to 
physiological  factors,  the  most  important  of  which 
I claim  to  be  nutrition,  for  it  determines  in  a large 
measure  the  processes  of  fertilisation  and  of  gestation, 
and  thus  the  biological  status,  not  only  of  the  bee-tribe, 
but  of  all  organisms.  I have  already  devoted  two 
volumes  to  this  subject  and  I find  it  is  yet  far  from  being 
exhausted. 

Darwinism,  not  to  its  credit,  has  so  far  shelved  the 
inquiry  into  the  factor  of  nutrition,  and  looks  askance 
at  any  attempts  to  elucidate  what  it  taboos  as  ‘ the 
slippery  basis  of  metabolism.’  The  result  is  that  the 
study  of  what  I would  call  Biological  Eugenics  has 
hung  fire  ever  since  Darwin’s  day,  though  it  is  a 
subject  that  is  of  the  utmost  importance  in  our  every- 
day life.  Although  Darwin  was  an  expert  breeder,  and 
with  wonderful  ingenuity  elucidated  the  important 
principle  of  plant-eugenics,  viz.  that  ‘ Nature  abhors 
perpetual  self-fertilisation,’  he  seems  not  to  have 
realised  that  the  share  which  feeding  has  in  the 
maturation  of  endowments  and  of  values  in  evolution 
is  of  greater  fundamental  importance  than  a mere 
combination  of  gametes. 

After  all,  the  differences  from  the  average  type 
induced  by  ‘ selective  ’ breeding  are  only  such  as 


PREFACE 


Vll 


might  be  expected  in  the  progeny  of  ‘ selected  ’ 
animals  as  the  result  of  new  metabolic  influences. 
Here  the  preliminary  question  arises,  how  is  it  that 
fertilisation  and  gestation  may  conduce  to  a gradual 
elevation  of  type  and  of  the  general  level  of  biological 
existence  ? If  an  adequacy  of  force — which,  I main- 
tain, adequate  feeding  alone  can  provide — is  indis- 
pensable to  orthogenesis,  a super- adequacy  of  force 
(as  Robert  Chambers  says)  is  needed  to  achieve  rise 
of  type.  To  obtain  this  super-adequacy  of  force  the 
genius  of  early  organic  life  struck  out  the  method 
of  reciprocal  differentiation — as  a means  of  economising 
physiological  labour  (recognised  by  Darwin  as  of 
great  importance)  and  of  storing  up  increment  forces 
and  qualities,  which  by  a variety  of  complemental 
processes  are  blended  and  thus  bring  about  mutual 
enhancement.  However  this  line  of  development  origi- 
nated, without  reciprocal  differentiation  and  mutuality 
there  would  have  been  no  maturation,  no  fertilisation, 
and,  hence,  no  gestation  and,  hence,  no  progressive 
evolution. 

Nay,  the  very  generation  of  nutritional  force  for  the 
sustenance  of  these  functions  and,  hence,  of  organic 
evolution,  is  a matter  of  reciprocal  differentiation  and, 
therefore,  of  reciprocal  activities.  Ability  to  rely  upon 
the  powers  of  mutuality  thus  primarily  rendered  evolution 
possible,  i.e.  division  of  labour  implies  and  necessitates 
co-operation. 


PREFACE 


viii 


When  Darwin  had  marshalled  the  evidence  which 
confirmed  our  faith  in  evolution,  he  left  the  impor- 
tant eugenic  threads  (if  I may  epitomise  them  so) 
where  Chambers  had  left  them. 

The  economic  threads  concerning  production,  economic 
usefulness  and  efficiency,  likewise,  he  left  where  another 
pioneer,  Malthus,  who  is  sometimes  referred  to  as  his 
master,  had  left  them. 

A continuation  and  combination  of  the  ‘ eugenic  ’ and 
economic  threads  no  doubt  would  have  led  Darwin  into 
the  study  of  Bio-Economics  proper,  which  I am  now 
endeavouring  to  set  forth  for  the  first  time. 

Darwin  is  supposed  to  have  admitted  more  than  fifty 
years  ago  ‘ that  it  is  extraordinarily  difficult  to  say 
precisely  why  one  species  has  been  victorious  over  another 
in  the  great  battle  of  life,’  and,  moreover,  to  have  had 
another  consideration  in  his  mind,  which  ‘ has  often 
been  lost  sight  of  since.’  ‘ It  is  illustrated,  for  instance, 
by  the  researches  of  Bumpus  and  of  Crampton  on  the 
survival  of  sparrows  and  pupae  respectively.  The  point 
was  that  the  survivors  seemed  to  survive,  not  because  of 
single  peculiarities,  but  because  of  their  general  stability 
and  efficiency  ’ [italics  mine].1 

To  the  study  of  the  physiological  and  combined 
economic  factors  productive  of  ‘ general  stability  and 
efficiency  ’ — the  study  of  biological  eugenics — freed  from 
the  misleading  side-issues  of  ‘ single  peculiarities,’  I have 

1 Evolution,  by  Professors  Geddes  and  Thomson. 


PREFACE 


IX 


devoted  myself  for  some  years,  and  in  so  doing,  I claim 
to  be  contributing  to  and  furthering  Darwin’s  work.  I 
believe  I have  shown  in  previous  volumes  that  just  as 
purity  is  the  indispensable  condition  of  stability  in  the 
inorganic  world,  so  in  the  organic  world  only  those  types 
excel  by  stability  and  efficiency  which  are  free  from  the 
blemishes  of  (accumulated)  surfeit  and  of  illegitimate 
associations  and  appropriations. 

The  Malthusian  generalisation  on  population  is  very 
commendablv  modified  and  circumscribed  by  Chambers 
thus  : * the  fecundity  of  nature  has  ordained  that  her 
creatures  shall  ever  be  pressing  upon  the  verge  of  the 
local  [italics  mine]  means  of  subsistence.’  This,  though 
in  my  view  still  too  highly  generalised,  at  any  rate  refers 
only  to  a local  congestion  and  adumbrates  the  remedy 
by  fresh  organismal  efforts  or  by  discovering  new  fields 
of  activity. 

Indeed,  so  far  from  inferring  a deadly  struggle  for 
food,  he  goes  on  to  say  that  ‘ a colonising  principle 
accordingly  comes  into  play,’  and  very  pertinently  he 
suggests  that  certain  individuals  are  perhaps  ‘ elected  to 
the  new  life  by  some  of  those  varieties  of  appetency 
which  occur  in  all  tribes  ; thus  exposing  themselves  to 
new  influences,  and  ceasing  to  experience  those  formerly 
operating  ’ [italics  mine]. 

From  the  point  of  view  of  Bio-Economics  I should 
say  that  though  local  cases  of  over-population  occur, 
new  qualifications — progressive  and  retrogressive — also 


X 


PREFACE 


constantly  arise  and  present  opportunities  for  new  posi- 
tions in  the  general  economy  of  Nature.  The  retrogressive 
have  to  be  content  with  those  adaptations  and  oppor- 
tunities compatible  with  their  (relative)  backwardness. 

‘ Varieties  in  appetency  ’ — changes  of  feeding  habits, 
accumulated  through  many  generations — in  particular 
are  responsible  for  physiological  and  biological  isolation, 
i.e.  for  eventual  divergences  of  species. 

The  case  of  biological  over-population  is  thus  seen  to 
involve  a less  lethal  struggle  than  was  supposed  by  Darwin 
and  his  friends,  who,  viewing  only  the  death-roll  of 
Nature,  allowed  themselves  rather  too  unreflectingly  to 
be  driven  into  the  Malthusian  theory  of  internecine 
struggle. 

Unable  on  this  view  of  Nature’s  book-keeping  to  see 
how  a local  surfeit  could  be  cured  by  bio-economic  adjust- 
ments, and  to  balance  consumption  by  production,  they 
were  constrained  to  postulate  a universal  ‘ struggle  for 
food,’  a ‘ utilitarian  selection  ’ by  which  the  unsuccessful 
candidates  were  necessarily  destroyed.  Natural  Selection 
‘ isolates  beneficial  variations  by  killing  off  the  others.’ 
‘ In  all  cases  it  must  be  a struggle,  with  death  as  the 
penalty  for  being  vanquished.’ 

Without  competition  there  is  no  ‘ selection,’  and  ‘ it 
is  natural  selection,  working  with  other  forms  of  isolation, 
which  has  brought  about  the  main  progress  of  life.’1 
What  co-operation  there  is  (accordingto  this  view),  consists 
1 F.  W.  Hutton,  F.R.S.,  etc.,  in  Darwinism  and  Lamarckism. 


PREFACE 


XI 


in  the  help  which  the  lucky  ‘ selected  ’ individuals  afford 
to  nature  in  exterminating  the  ‘ non-elect.’ 

It  is  true  that  Darwin  pointed  out  that  diversification 
of  habits  has  its  advantages,  but  his  principle  of  ‘ natural  ’ 
or  ‘ utilitarian  ’ selection  is  not  supposed  to  isolate  different 
members  of  the  same  group,  but,  on  the  contrary,  to 
entirely  destroy  all  new  variations  4 when  the  external 
conditions  remain  the  same  for  a long  time.’ 1 The  new 
Darwinism,  therefore,  has  recourse  to  4 isolation  ’ as  an 
additional  help  to  4 selection.’  How  is  it  that  some  types 
have  been  isolated  and  preserved  whilst  others  have  not  ? 
The  answer  of  Darwinism  consists  of  little  more  than 
words  : 4 Isolation  and  Preservation.’  The  main  cause 
of  4 general  stability  and  efficiency  ’ is  scarcely  touched. 
The  study  of  the  effects  of  the  biological  environment, 
so  meritoriously  begun  by  Darwin  and  by  Wallace,  instead 
of  becoming  a fruitful  foundation  of  Bio-Economics  and 
Eugenics,  thus  resolved  itself  mainly  into  an  account  of 
4 warfare  ’ and  of  4 famine  ’ — and  for  the  rest  into  a war 
of  words.  Darwin’s  principle  of  4 the  struggle  for 
existence  ’ has  admittedly  only  a metaphorical  meaning, 
and  has  also  glaring  limitations  and  deficiencies,  which 
even  the  help  of 4 isolation  ’ as  a 4 principle  ’ cannot  cure. 
The  question  whether,  on  the  whole,  necessities  and 
usefulness  have  received  a true  setting  in  Darwinism  can 
therefore  scarcely  be  answered  in  the  affirmative. 

In  view  of  the  surpassing  importance  of  the  bio- 
1 F.  W.  Hutton,  F.R.S.,  etc.,  in  Darwinism  and  Lamarckism. 


PREFACE 


xii 

economic  interdependence  of  organisms,  a more  rational 
view  of  organismal  necessities  and  duties  and  equally  a 
more  rational  standard  of  usefulness — ‘ use  ’ in  the 
widest  sense — has  to  be  adopted  than  is  adopted  in  either 
case  by  Darwinism.  We  must  leave  behind  the  deadly 
region  of  crude  utilitarianism. 

Development  must  be  explained  in  terms  of  Bio- 
Economics  in  the  place  of  an  explanatory  method  which 
forces  everything  into  the  procrustean  bed  of  ‘ Selection.’ 
Nor  can  we  any  longer  afford  to  leave  so  vital  a factor  in 
evolutionary  development  as  correlation — ‘ our  ignorance 
of  which  is  profound  ’ — out  of  consideration.  All  develop- 
ment is  correlated  development.  Unless  this  is  fully 
recognised  our  study  of  evolution  must  be  based  on 
Pseudo-Biology  and  Pseudo-Economics.  We  must  not 
be  content  to  remain  ‘ profoundly  ignorant  of  the  con- 
ditions of  existence  of  every  animal  ’ as  Darwin  puts  it 
in  his  ‘ Journal  of  a Naturalist  ’ ; but  we  must  make  a 
special  study  of  the  systematic  activities  of  organisms 
and  learn  to  estimate  the  physiological  and  biological 
correlation-value  of  such  organismal  functions. 

Biological  transformations  will  thus  become  in- 
telligible in  the  light  of  combined  physiological  and 
bio-economic  development  correlated  with  transmitted 
functions  and  habits.  Controversies  about  transmission  or 
non-transmission  of  ‘ acquired  ’ characters  appear  quite 
trivial  in  comparison  with  considerations  of  this  kind. 

Nor  need  we  lay  great  stress  on  ‘ chance  ’ variations. 


PREFACE 


xiii 

What  is  not  required  in  evolution  will  not  stay  long, 
and  is  at  any  rate  of  little  significance.  Whatever  exists 
must,  with  misuse  (rather  than  disuse),  tend  toward 
an  untimely  end.  It  is  values  and  qualifications  that 
everywhere  determine  persistence.  To  be  or  not  to  be 
of  any  evolutionary  importance  does  not  so  much  depend, 
as  previous  writers,  including  even  Chambers,  held,  on 
* the  accident  of  external  conditions,’  but  is  a matter  of 
qualification.  To  advance  or  to  retrograde,  to  gain  a 
super-adequacy  of  force  or  to  become  deficient  of  force, 
is  to  be  or  not  to  be  co-operative,  efficient,  and  there- 
fore stable.  It  is  never  a matter  of  ‘ chance.’ 

Those  of  my  readers  familiar  with  the  literature  of 
Darwinism  will  know  that  the  ‘ general  economy  of 
Nature  ’ is  there,  though  rather  casually,  made  responsible 
for  a great  deal.  Wherein  does  it  consist  ? 

Messrs.  Geddes  and  Thomson  suggest  that  ‘ Darwin’s 
characteristic  fundamental  idea  of  the  intricacy  of 
inter-relations  in  the  web  of  life  lies  below  the  idea  of  the 
struggle  for  existence,  and  therefore  below  the  idea  of 
natural  selection.’  They  speak  of  the  need  of  appreciat- 
ing the  ‘ fundamental  natural  history  fact  ’ of  the  web  of 
life.  But  what  of  the  underlying  fact  of  Natural  (or 
Biological)  Economy  ? On  these  questions,  as  well  as  on 
the  first  principles  of  feeding  and  of  Eugenics,  on  useful- 
ness and  on  efficiency — ‘ magnalia  naturae  quoad  usus 
humanos  ’ — the  following  pages,  I trust,  will  throw  more 
light. 

Surbiton:  June  1913. 


CONTENTS 


CHAP. 

Introduction 

PAGE 

1 

I. 

Biological  Economy 

. 31 

II. 

Selection  ..... 

. 95 

III. 

Digestive  Transformation 

. 126 

IV. 

Is  Nature  Non-Moral  ? 

. 131 

V. 

Correlations 

. 134 

VI. 

The  Solidarity  of  Organic  Life 

. 147 

VII. 

The  Eternal  Feminine  in  Nature  . 

. 152 

VIII. 

Adequacy  of  Forces 

. . 164 

IX. 

Evolution  by  Parasitism 

. 172 

Index  ....... 

. 197 

EVOLUTION  BY  CO-OPERATION 


INTRODUCTION 

‘ Immer  strebe  zum  Ganzen.’ — ( Diesterweg .) 

1 The  preservation  of  each  species  can  rarely  be  determined  by  any 
one  advantage,  but  by  the  union  of  all,  great  and  small.’ — [Darwin.) 

‘ After  long  intervals  of  time,  the  productions  of  the  world  appear 
to  have  changed  simultaneously.’ — (Darwin.) 

The  central  problem  of  Life,  and,  a fortiori,  of  Organic 
Evolution,  is  production — production  of  the  necessaries 
and  utilities  of  life  first,  and  the  requirements  of  progress 
after.  The  method  of  solving  the  problem  consists  in 
systematic  activity  (work)  and  in  physiological  and 
biological  division  of  labour,  which  in  its  turn  entails  on 
the  structural  side  differentiation  of  a correlated  and 
reciprocal  character.  Economically  speaking,  it  follows 
that  once  this  step  of  reciprocal  differentiation  was 
reached  it  became  a necessity  (or  duty)  for  all  partici- 
pants to  maintain  adequate  efforts,  lest  the  level  of 
organic  existence  should  tend  to  return  towards  the  pre- 
differentiated state  instead  of  gradually  rising  to  a 
level  of  which  homo  sapiens  is  the  best  expression. 

It  has  been  asserted  that  hunger  and  love  have 
been  the  most  powerful  stimulants  of  progress  ; but 


B 


2 


EVOLUTION  BY  CO-OPERATION 


it  is  also  necessary  to  recognise  that  nutrition  and 
reproduction,  through  which  they  act,  have  throughout 
evolution  shown  a most  remarkable  tendency  towards 
reciprocal  arrangements.  Hunger  and  love  have  thus 
at  an  early  date  led  to  ‘ other-regarding  ’ functions, 
which  ‘ other-regarding  ’ functions  also  partake  of  the 
nature  of  ‘ all-regarding  ’ functions  in  so  far  as  they  were 
most  calculated  to  serve  the  interests  of  the  organic 
world  as  a whole. 

To  take  a striking  and  particularly  appropriate 
example  of  this  relation  from  Henry  Drummond  : ‘ Every 
plant  in  the  world  lives  for  others  ; it  sets  aside  some- 
thing, something  costly,  cared  for,  the  highest  expression 
of  its  nature.  The  seed  is  the  tithe  of  love,  the  tithe 
which  nature  renders  to  man.’  Moreover,  the  system  of 
elaborate  service  of  one  organism  to  another,  which  in 
Sir  E.  Ray  Lankester’s  words  is  now 1 ‘ found  on  examina- 
tion [italics  mine]  to  be  practically  universal,  though  of 
extraordinary  variety  and  diverse  degrees  of  intimacy,’ 
invites  comparison  with  the  economic  relations  between 
social  groups  in  the  human  family. 

The  abundance  of  facts  of  mutual  labour  in  nature 
has  long  struck  me  as  an  important  feature  demanding 
fresh  interpretations.  Whether  we  incline  on  the  whole 
to  interpret  these  facts  teleologically,  or  merely  as  the 
higher  egoism  of  the  total  community  subordinating  to 
itself  the  activities  of  the  mere  unit,  makes  little  difference. 

1 Daily  Telegraph,  March  4,  1913. 


INTRODUCTION 


8 


What  in  my  view  is  extremely  significant,  however,  and 
what  makes  the  study  of  evolution  along  economic  lines 
so  fruitful,  is  the  fact  that  all  progressive  or  retrogres- 
sive developments  in  evolution  have  been  attended 
and  paralleled  by  definite  and  characteristic  economic 
developments. 

The  economic  phase  of  evolution  presents  itself  mainly, 
I submit,  as  a process  of  biological  co-operation,  similar 
to — though  on  a wider  scale  than — the  process  of  co-opera- 
tion obtaining  in  human  society.  Thus  as  one  nation 
from  others  so  a species  may  borrow  forces  from  the 
biological  environment  with  impunity,  so  long  as  it 
continues  to  contribute  adequately  to  the  common 
organic  funds.  Broadly  speaking,  it  may  be  said  that 
both  organisation  and  biological  status  have  improved 
in  the  course  of  evolution,  in  proportion  as  the  organ- 
ism’s economic  activities  tended  to  help  rather  than 
to  hinder  the  collective  welfare  of  the  organic  world. 
The  mammalia,  the  type  most  qualified  for  ‘ other- 
regarding  ’ and  ‘ all-regarding  ’ functions,  thus  have 
attained  the  highest  rank  in  evolution. 

In  the  biological  world  everything  is  interdependent, 
and  continues  to  be  by  virtue  of  its  relations  to  something 
else.  Everything  is  complemental  to  something  else. 
Just  as  an  organism  itself  is  a monument  to  the  co-opera- 
tive principle  of  differentiation  of  function  and  structure, 
so  the  existence  of  the  total  biological  family  rests  securely 
on  the  same  principle.  Its  very  specialisation  serves  the 


4 


EVOLUTION  BY  CO-OPERATION 


common  purpose  of  raising  a maximum  of  organic  utilities 
with  a minimum  of  organic  cost. 

The  process  of  gradual  specialisation  in  the  biological 
world  differs  only  in  degree  from  that  which  rendered 
man  in  society  or,  say,  some  of  the  hymenoptera  particu- 
larly striking  types  of  co-operation.  Is  it  not  significant 
that  far  below  man  in  the  scale  of  life  already  we  find 
such  a wonderful  degree  of  co-operation — both  domestic 
and  bio-economic — with  momentous  results  upon  the 
evolution  of  life  ? ‘ A whole  volume  would  scarcely 
suffice  to  enumerate  the  various  talents  and  habits  of  the 
honey-seeking  crowd,’  says  Maeterlinck.  Of  the  Apiens 
he  says  (what  has  been  variously  pointed  out  by  other 
writers)  : to  them  ‘ we  probably  owe  most  of  our  flowers 
and  fruits  (for  it  is  actually  estimated  that  more  than  a 
hundred  thousand  varieties  of  plants  would  disappear  if 
the  bees  did  not  visit  them),  and  possibly  even  our  civilisa- 
tion, for  in  these  mysteries  all  things  intertwine.’  The 
study  of  biological  co-operation,  however,  is  only  in  its 
infancy,  and  we  must  welcome,  therefore,  attempts  that 
have  already  been  made  in  one  or  two  directions  to  found 
on  those  variations  in  domestic  economy  a system  of 
classification  that  ‘ may  forerun  considerable  changes  in 
many  departments  of  zoology.’ 

My  contention  is  that  co-operative  principles  have,  in 
similar  ways  to  those  obtaining  between  bee  and  flower, 
prevailed  throughout  the  course  of  evolution.  From 
the  moment  division  of  labour  set  in,  co-operation  must 


INTRODUCTION 


5 


have  been  essential  to  the  organic  world,  for  it  afforded 
the  only  possibility  of  preservation  and  progress.  Just  as 
in  human  society  an  invisible  but  nevertheless  actual  and 
indispensable  standard  of  useful  morality  has  gradually 
arisen,  so  also  the  biological  world  is  ruled  by  an  invisible 
but  actual  standard  of  domestic  and  bio-economic  use- 
fulness or  social  morality.  This  being  the  case,  we  may 
expect  the  sway  of  a quasi  bio-moral  force  to  have  left 
its  mark  upon  the  very  instincts  of  organisms.  We  may 
expect  organisms  by  the  force  of  such  circumstances — as 
well  as  by  virtue  of  their  very  constitution — to  be  pre- 
eminently co-operatively  inclined.  This  is  demonstrably 
the  case,  however  frequently  the  co-operative  instincts  are 
apt  to  become  perverted  and  misdirected. 

It  is  the  bio-economic  task  of  organisms  to  earn 
their  sustenance  and  over  and  abovfe  tl#  to  provide  for 
marginal  and  exchangeable  bio-economic-values  to  be  used 
in  the  mutual  accomplishment  of  evolution.  The  chief 
part  of  this  task  consists  in  the  provision  of  raw  material 
and  in  the  transforming  and  storing  (capitalising)  of  solar 
energies,  in  which  process  physical  forces  are  being 
systematically  raised  to  the  position  of  physiological 
forces.  The  resulting  values  are  bio-economically  useful 
and  exchangeable  as  between  species  and  larger  groups- 
The  continuance  of  this  systematic  organismal  effort 
(work)  is  necessary  in  order  to  maintain  both  the  supplies 
of  energy  and  the  essential  capacities  for  work,  and  here 
again  the  self-preservation  of  the  organic  world  implies  a 


6 


EVOLUTION  BY  CO-OPERATION 


common  interest  which  in  course  of  time  must  make 
itself  felt  as  economic  and  biological  pressure  against  all 
elements  impeding  co-operative  production.  Hence  we 
find  that  those  organisms  which  manifestly  fail  in  main- 
taining such  co-operative  effort  are  most  precariously 
placed,  are  penalised  physiologically  (by  various  forms  of 
retrogression,  of  infection  and  disease)  and  likewise 
biologically  by  various  kinds  of  enmities  and  afflictions. 

I submit  that  the  negative  reactions  resulting  from 
negative  bio-economic  activities  (i.e.  wastefulness  and 
depredation)  in  course  of  time  produce  a diminution  of 
transformative  power,  which  becomes  traceable  upon 
organisation  as  loss  of  symmetry,  frequently  manifesting 
itself  in  extreme  sexual  dimorphism,  together  with  a 
general  tendency  towards  monstrosity.  Before  organisms 
could  function  efficiently  in  the  external  biological  en- 
vironment, they  had  to  achieve  internal  (physiological) 
efficiency.  Physiological  and  bio-economic  development 
therefore  moved  along  parallel  and  correlated  paths. 

Another  result  of  negative  activities  is  the  tendency 
towards  unchecked  and  unduly  accelerated  reproduction. 
All  these  developments,  which  the  biological  world  pre- 
sents so  frequently  and  variously,  are  accompanied  by 
various  forms  of  diathesis  incompatible  with  stability. 
The  consequence  is  an  eventual  loss  of  biological  status 
or  may  be  extinction.  The  extreme  cases  of  this  non-co- 
operative or  purely  self-regarding  course  of  life  are  in  my 
view  to  be  found  in  the  various  modifications  of  form  and 


INTRODUCTION 


7 


of  fate  presented  by  organisms  that  have  lapsed  into 
parasitism'. 

The  hymenoptera  again  provide  us  with  a few  typical — 
though  by  no  means  extreme — examples  of  comparatively 
negative  or  (according  to  my  classification)  pathological 
results.  To  quote  again  from  Maeterlinck  : ‘ First  there 
come  the  nearest  kindred  of  our  domestic  honey-fly,  the 
thick-set,  hairy  humble-bee,  occasionally  small  in  size, 
but  as  a rule  enormous .’  ‘ They  are  still  half-barbarous  ; 
they  ravish  the  calyces,  destroying  them  if  they  resist, 
and  push  through  the  satin  veils  of  the  corollas  like  a 
cave-bear  that  might  have  forced  its  way  into  the  silken, 
pearl-bestrewn  tent  of  a Byzantine  princess.’  ‘ By  their 
side,  larger  than  the  largest  of  them,  there  passes  a monster 
clothed  in  darkness.  It  burns  with  a sombre  fire,  of 
green  and  violet : it  is  the  Xylocopa  wood-ranger,  the 
giant  of  the  melliferous  world.’  ‘ Then  follow  pell-mell 
Dastjpodae  and  wasp-like  Halicti,  Andrennae,  which  often 
fall  victims  to  a fantastic  parasite,  the  Stylops,  whereby 
their  appearance  is  completely  changed  ’ [italics  mine]. 

And  further,  comparing  the  supposed  ancestor  of  our 
bee — the  Prosopis — possessed  of  an  elegance  which  ‘ hides 
an  inconceivable  poverty  ’ : ‘ She  leads  a life  of  starvation. 
She  is  almost  naked,  whereas  her  sisters  are  clad  in  a 
warm  and  sumptuous  fleece.  She  has  not,  like  the  Apidse, 
baskets  to  gather  the  pollen,  nor,  in  their  default,  the 
tuft  of  the  Andrennae,  nor  the  ventral  brush  of  the 
Gastrilegidae.  Her  tiny  claws  must  laboriously  gather 


8 


EVOLUTION  BY  CO-OPERATION 


the  powder  from  the  calyces,  which  powder  she  needs 
must  swallow  to  take  it  back  to  her  lair.  She  has  no 
implements  other  than  her  tongue,  her  mouth,  and  her 
claws,  but  her  tongue  is  too  short,  her  claws  are  feeble, 
and  her  mandibles  without  strength.  Unable  to  produce 
wax,  bore  holes  through  wood,  or  dig  in  the  earth,  she 
contrives  clumsy  galleries  in  the  tender  pith  of  dry  berries  ; 
erects  a few  awkward  cells,  stores  these  with  a little  food 
for  the  offspring  she  never  will  see,  and  then,  having 
accomplished  this  poor  task  of  hers,  that  tends  she 
knows  not  whither  and  of  whose  aim  we  are  no  less 
ignorant,  she  goes  off  and  dies  in  a corner,  as  solitarily 
as  she  had  lived.’ 

In  these  instances  we  have  depicted  almost  every 
form  of  negative  bio-economic  result.  The  comparative 
precariousness  and  poverty  of  the  non-reciprocal  savage 
life,  and  indeed  its  value- destroying  propensities  ; the 
development  of  monstrosity,  the  proneness  of  idlers  to 
parasitic  infection  (disease),  the  change  of  form,  the 
absence  of  organic  implements  by  the  aid  of  which  to 
render  exchangeable  services  and  to  achieve  that  bio- 
logical reciprocity  which  purchases  further  evolution, 
the  comparatively  accelerated  life-cycle  which  causes 
the  mother  to  die  long  before  she  can  be  of  educational 
and  altruistic  avail  to  her  offspring — all  these,  I maintain, 
are  tell-tale  developments.  They  are,  in  my  view,  the 
injurious  complements  to  comparatively  wasteful  bio- 
economic  developments,  which  in  course  of  time  lead  up 


INTRODUCTION 


9 


to  various  eliminations  either  through  increase  of  mor- 
bidity and  self-destructive  propensity  or  through  clashes 
with  the  more  precious  organisation  of  the  strenuous 
types,  who  comply  with  the  highest  standards  of  good 
bio-economic  conduct. 

The  bees  also  present  us  with  good  examples  of  the 
tacit  recognition  of  bio-economic  values  in  the  world 
of  organisms  and  of  direct  eliminations  according  to 
value.  Thus  the  virgin  workers  are  supposed  to  recognise 
the  queen  as  a ‘ symbol  of  life  more  precious,  more  vast 
than  their  own.’  They  will  sacrifice  their  lives  for  the 
sake  of  hers.  On  the  other  hand,  the  clumsy,  useless, 
noisy  drones,  who  are  1 pretentious,  gluttonous,  dirty, 
coarse,  totally  and  scandalously  idle,  insatiable,’  and 
moreover  of  ‘ enormous  ’ size  (note  here  the  dimorphism  1 
in  accordance  with  conduct !),  are  mercilessly  massacred 
with  the  advent  of  economic  stress,  ‘ when  flowers  begin 
to  close  sooner  and  open  later.’ 

It  has  been  said  that  an  organism  dies  because  its 
processes  go  on  no  longer  teleologically  (zweckmassig), 
but  only  causally.  J.  v.  Uxkfill,  to  whom  we  owe  this 
definition  of  dying,  explains  : ‘ When  we  look  backward 
every  phase  in  the  process  of  development  seems  to  us 
to  have  proceeded  in  a strictly  causal  manner  from  physio- 
chemical  processes.  But  when  we  look  forward  it  is 
certain  that  the  physio-chemical  processes,  if  left  to 

1 Again  I must  refer  the  reader  to  previous  volumes  where  these 
phenomena  are  treated  of.  They  are  by  no  means  confined  to  the  bees. 


10 


EVOLUTION  BY  CO-OPERATION 


their  own  causality,  must  immediately  bring  about  the 
destruction  of  the  organism.’ 

This  seems  very  true.  I maintain  that  the  biological 
analogue  to  this  physiological  ‘ Zweckmassigkeit  ’ (pur- 
posiveness) is  to  be  found  in  bio-economic  usefulness 
(Zweckmassigkeit),  although  the  alternative  process 
which  is  the  cause  of  biological  dying  is  frequently  slow 
and  difficult  to  recognise. 

We  must  bear  in  mind  that  organisms  live  not  only 
by  virtue  of,  but  also  m spite  of  what  they  are.  They 
may  resist  death  in  spite  of  the  presence  of  morbid 
forces.  Lapse  of  physiological  effort  (sluggishness)  or 
a local  surfeit  (impregnation  with  foreign  matter)  need 
not  produce  death  as  an  immediate  result,  though  they 
involve  more  or  less  persisting  pathological  developments, 
which  are  transmissible. 

So  long  as  the  organism  remains  plastic  enough,  it 
may  contrive  a variety  of  expedients  to  bring  its  organisa- 
tion by  some  retrogressive  adjustment  into  line  with  the 
changed  habits  and  the  changed  inheritance.  Preserva- 
tion alone,  therefore,  is  by  no  means  a sufficient  guarantee 
of  healthy  survival.  It  may  be  that  some  positive  com- 
ponents present  are  just  vital  enough  to  impress  some 
kind  of  specific  aspect  upon  the  otherwise  slowly  degene- 
rating species.  Some  characters  may  have  remained 
tolerably  constant,  being  dependent  on  a remaining  useful 
organ. 

These  pathological  points  are  so  vital  to  the  under- 


INTRODUCTION 


11 


standing  of  the  bio-economic  theory  which  I commend 
that  I must  insist  on  them  at  some  length.  It  has  been 
customary  hitherto  to  refer  to  the  ‘ endowment  ’ of 
organisms  in  a vague  and  haphazard  manner.  In 
a valid  analysis,-  it  should  be  possible  to  account  for 
the  essential  endowments  as  well  as  for  the  subjective 
hindrances  of  an  organism  or  a species.  We  do  not  yet 
possess,  however,  a qualitative  or  quantitative  biological 
analysis.  Biologists  remain  satisfied  that  the  mere 
achievement  of  reproduction  is  in  general  a sufficient 
criterion  of  biological  success,  irrespective  of  maturation- 
value  and  eugenics,  and  regardless  of  the  obvious  de- 
generation which  frequently  accompanies  reproduction. 
The  standard  of  highness  is  an  ‘ obscure  subject  ’ accord- 
ing to  Darwin,  What  is  essential  in  endowment  is  that 
which  has  been  accumulated  by  persistent  and  co-opera- 
tive ancestral  efforts.  It  is  comparable  to  a fund  wdiich, 
though  it  may  now  be  in  course  of  dissipation,  was  yet 
originated  by  labour.  In  an  analogous  manner  organisms 
may  deflect  parts  of  their  funds  retrogressively  to  non- 
co-operative uses  until  eventually  rudiments  only  of  their 
quondam  bio-economic  status  may  remain.  The  very 
perfection  of  offensiveness  and  of  predacious  propensity 
in  a species,  therefore,  must  not  deceive  us  about  its  real 
state  of  instability1  any  more  than  about  the  true  fons  et 


1 The  fact  that  domestication  in  the  case  of  many  carnivorous 
animals  leads  to  sterility  seems  to  indicate  that  their  survival-capacity 
has  become  impaired. 


12 


EVOLUTION  BY  CO-OPERATION 


origo  of  its  remaining  strength.  If  it  is  now  tending  in 
the  very  opposite  direction  to  which  ancestral  virtue 
tended,  it  can  only  exercise  this  abuse  of  power  by  dint 
of  exhausting  that  which  its  ancestors  have  built  up. 
Mendelism  has  shown  that  not  always  does  the  plume 
proclaim  the  fowl,  and  similarly  wTe  must  not  allow 
ourselves  to  be  deceived  by  the  appearances  of  tooth  and 
claw  as  regards  the  true  composition  and  stability  of  an 
organism.  If,  frequently,  the  slow  atrophy  of  * other- 
regarding  ’ organisation  is  an  opportunity  of  the  perfecting 
of  aggressive  organisation,  this  process  only  represents  an 
inferior  rearrangement  of  parts,  a genuine  retrogression — 
more  particularly  so  in  the  light  of  correlations  (about 
which  more  anon). 

The  fact  that  large  classes  of  organisms — the  aristo- 
cracy of  life — have  manifestly  declined  to  avail  themselves 
of  retrogressive  practices  and  of  short  cuts,  have  disdained 
all  manner  of  tempting  adaptations,  have  in  particular 
shown  a remarkable  perseverance  of  feeding  habits,  is  in 
my  opinion  more  striking  than  the  prevalence  of  more  or 
less  depraved  types.  The  highest  types  of  animals,  the 
primates  and  man,  have  chosen  not  to  organise  for 
aggression  at  all,  but  to  rely  instead  on  the  forces  that 
mutuality  was  to  bestow  upon  them.  Man,  it  seems,  has 
inherited  an  organisation  ‘ from  vegetarian  ancestors 
even  more  remote  than  the  apes.' 1 

During  the  conduct  of  life  negative  elements  are 
1 Sir  E.  Ray  Lankester,  Daily  Telegraph,  May  19,  1913. 


INTRODUCTION 


13 


mainly,  though  imperceptibly,  brought  together  by  bad 
habits.  ‘Magna  est  vis  consuetudinis.’  It  is  habit  by 
which  organisms  either  reach  the  substance  of  life  or  are 
drawn  further  and  further  away  from  it.  It  is  habit 
which  in  course . of  time  is  productive  of  cumulative 
effects.  Just  as  systematic  activity,  efficiently  and 
co-operatively  applied,  is  the  main  support  of  evolution, 
so  systematic  activity  misapplied — bad  physiological 
and  economic  habit — is  the  main  impediment.  If 
bad  habits  are  apt  eventually  to  produce  pathological 
effects  they  must  likewise  in  course  of  time  involve 
negative  biological  effects,  which  are  less  easy  to 
disentangle.  In  studying  such  effects  we  must  make 
due  allowance  for  the  time  element  and  for  adventitious 
factors  which  are  apt  to  hide  the  true  normal  factors, 
lest  we  should  be  obliged  to  apply  the  epithet  ‘ chance  ’ 
to  an  effect  the  cause  of  which  lies  far  back  in  time 
when  normal  habits  gave  way  to  abnormal  habits — to 
habits  which  we  may  also  term  dysteleological,  because 
they  fail  to  conform  to  a bio-economic  standard  of 
conduct,  to  comply  with  which  forms  a kind  of  end  in 
respect  of  the  healthy  survival  of  the  race  and  of  the 
biological  world  generally. 

To  arrive  at  just  conclusions  on  so  vast  a matter  as 
organic  evolution  it  is  necessary  to  try  to  understand 
minor  developments  by  the  aid  of  broad  developments, 
and,  moreover,  to  look  the  broad  facts  of  Nature  squarely 
and  fairly  in  the  face,  though  the  results  obtained  may  not 


14 


EVOLUTION  BY  CO-OPERATION 


seem  at  first  glance  to  harmonise  with  preconceived 
notions.  When  we  consider,  for  instance,  that  plant  and 
animal  are  physiologically  complemental,  in  accordance 
with  a world-wide  division  of  labour,  that  the  actual 
position  of  a plant  in  the  scale  of  evolution  is  according 
to  its  productiveness  of  values,  and  further  that  the 
habit  of  obtaining  food  by  short  cuts  rather  than  by  effort 
universally  leads  to  degeneration,  such  broad  facts  are  full 
of  significance.  Notwithstanding  a vast  concatenation  of 
cause  and  effect  during  the  long  periods  of  evolution  and 
the  almost  bewildering  complexity  of  the  ‘ web  of  life,’  they 
tell  us  that  in  course  of  time  bio-economically  useful 
behaviour  has  been  the  normal  road  to  evolution  and  has 
indeed  determined  survival  and  prevalence.  They  also 
show  that  the  same  factors  upon  which  organic  life  relies 
for  its  very  existence,  viz.  co-operative  factors,  are  like- 
wise the  normal  essentials  to  its  subsequent  evolution. 
The  same  may  be  said  of  a number  of  other  facts 
connected  with  the  phenomena  of  symbiosis,1  of  cross- 
fertilisation, of  cultivation  and  distribution  of  seeds, 
which  moreover  justify  the  further  conclusion  that  the 
fundamental  principles  of  human  society — give  and  take 
— had  been  complied  with  as  the  rule  of  progressive 
life  long  before  man’s  advent.  Virtue  thus  is  older 

1 The  botanist  Kerner  states  that  ‘ the  reciprocity  here  implied  is, 
however,  at  bottom  but  a copy  of  the  complementary  interaction  of 
plants  and  animals  which  takes  place  on  a grand  scale  in  the  organic 
world,’  and  yet  Darwin  declares  that  we  are  profoundly  ignorant  of 
the  mutual  relations  of  the  inhabitants  of  the  world  ! 


INTRODUCTION 


15 


than  man  and  older  than  vice.  On  the  other  hand, 
laxity  of  physiological  and  economic  effort,  with  the 
subsequent  failure  to  provide  exchangeable  bio-economic 
margins,  we  have  already  recognised  as  a fundamental 
cause  of  negative  developments.  A fortiori  is  this  true 
of  the  fatal  evolution  by  a species  of  the  habit  of 
depredation. 

The  factor  which  we  must  now  recognise,  as  lending 
itself  most  readily  to  the  cumulative  introduction  of 
impediments  (impurities)  and  to  the  evolution  of  the 
habit  of  depredation,  is  nutrition,  which,  I submit,  is 
playing  the  most  prominent  part  in  effecting  the  trans- 
formations of  the  organic  world. 

‘ Ex  quovis  ligno  non  fit  Mercurius.’  By  providing  the 
organismal  building  material,  nutrition  first  of  all  largely 
determines  organic  form  and  architecture  ; by  providing 
the  soil  and  the  force  for  all  subsequent  maturations 
and  transformations,  it  largely  conditions  all  future 
possibilities.  As  representing  stored-up  organic  capital, 
moreover,  nutrition  may  easily  be  seen  to  be  the  medium 
through  which  many  important  biological  reactions  and 
affinities  must  arise.  Whether  food  is  obtained  co-opera- 
tively or  predaceously,  this  is  an  issue  which  in  the  long 
run  must  involve  numerous  vital  correlations. 

The  difference  of  pressure  upon  diverse  species  is  by  no 
means  as  arbitrary  a matter  as  has  hitherto  been  supposed. 
It  has  a history — a history  of  cause  and  effect.  In 
making  use  of  food  material,  a species  draws  in  effect  on 


16 


EVOLUTION  BY  CO-OPERATION 


the  great  store  of  sustenance  established  by  the  combined 
efforts  of  all  organisms.  Food  material,  having  been  pro- 
duced co-operatively,  must  also  be  distributed  according 
to  principles  of  co-operation.  That  this  is  indeed  neces- 
sary, if  wholesome  economic  activity  is  to  be  permanently 
maintained,  is  fairly  obvious.  That  there  are  apparently 
flourishing  exceptions  to  this  great  rule  cannot  deceive  us 
as  regards  the  underlying  realities  of  the  general  economic 
scheme  of  nature.  We  must  remember — although  here, 
as  in  nature  generally,  a vast  complexity  of  things  some- 
times would  seem  to  render  it  problematical — that  in 
human  economics  likewise  no  citizen  or  nation  can  more 
than  temporarily  suffer  or  rejoice  by  itself,  or  gain  a 
lasting  advantage  through  the  misfortune  of  another. 

That  the  nutritive  need  is  the  most  fundamental 
problem  of  the  so-called  ‘ Struggle  for  Life  ’ is  variously 
and  in  a general  way  admitted  by  Darwinists.  How 
far  the  solving  of  this  problem  involved  regular  and 
systematic  bio-economic  activity  is,  however,  but  scantily 
recognised  by  Darwin  and  his  school.  Darwinists  to  this 
day  commit  the  error  of  neglecting  the  study  of  the 
evolution  of  habits,  and  of  regarding  feeding  habits 
(amongst  others)  as  fixed.  Darwin  gives  exceedingly 
few  examples  of  animals  acquiring  habits,  although 
he  assumes  that  certain  habits  have  been  acquired. 

‘ Here,  as  on  other  occasions,’  he  says,  ‘ I he  under 
a heavy  disadvantage.’  But  feeding  habits  have 
undergone  changes  in  the  past,  just  as  organs  have 


INTRODUCTION 


17 


undergone  changes ; the  former,  indeed,  have  largely 
determined  the  latter,  for  the  changes  of  feeding  habits 
involved  vital  physiological  and  bio-economic  changes. 
The  result  of  these  omissions  is  that  Darwinism  has 
failed  to  take  account  of  the  economics  of  production 
as  they  apply  to  the  general  economy  of  Nature. 
Failing  a proper  Biological  Economy,  it  confined  itself 
to  the  most  sterile  portion  of  Political  Economy,  re- 
presented by  the  Malthusian  doctrine.  A further 
result  was  the  vagueness  and  inadequacy — recognised 
by  many  students — of  the  Darwinian  Selection  theory. 
The  very  word  ‘ struggle  ’ is  little  more  than  a meta- 
phor. When  it  is  said  that  an  animal  ‘ struggles,’ 
all  that  is  really  meant  is  that  it  lives,  with  the 
assumption  that  it  lives  most  prominently  at  the 
expense  of  others,  that  its  very  presence  adds  to  the 
difficulties  of  organic  existence.  If,  with  writers  like 
Henry  Drummond  and  P.  Kropotkin,  we  argue  rather 
that  ‘ the  struggle  for  the  life  of  others  is  sunk  as  deep 
in  the  cosmic  process  as  the  struggle  for  Life,’  that  there 
exists  a vast  amount  of  co-operation  and  mutual  aid, 
that  in  any  case  a distinction  must  be  made  between 
behaviour  that  is  wasteful  and  behaviour  wThich  is  not, 
the  Darwinian  theory  conjures  up  a plurality  of  other 
climatic  and  geological  inclemencies  with  which  to  put 
the  grimmest  possible  complexion  upon  the  history  of  the 
evolution  of  life.  The  necessities  entailed  in  the  inclemen- 
cies of  physical  and  atmospheric  circumstances,  however, 


18 


EVOLUTION  BY  CO-OPERATION 


are  by  no  means  on  a par  with  bio-economic  neces- 
sities and  contingencies,  which  pre-eminently  determine 
whether  organisms  are  to  be  or  not  to  be. 

The  Malthusian  doctrine  asserts  that  ‘ there  is  a 
constant  tendency  in  all  animated  life  to  increase  beyond 
the  nourishment  prepared  for  it.’ 

This  is  far  too  sweeping  a statement.  It  does  not 
make  adequate  allowance  for  the  share  which  the 
organism  itself  bears  in  the  production  of  sustenance  or 
of  its  equivalents.  It  does  not  allow  for  the  variations 
in  bio-economic  conduct,  which,  as  the}7  determine  changes 
of  pressure,  so  also  determine  rates  of  multiplication. 
Redundancy  produced  by  excess  of  nutrition,  or,  what 
frequently  amounts  to  the  same  thing,  sluggishness, 
cannot  in  justice  be  charged  upon  natural  laws.  The 
statement  Hen  ne  se  'pewple  comme  les  gueux  applies 
to  the  biological  world  generally.  It  is  abnormal  and 
pathological  for  the  reproductive  power  of  an  organism 
to  sink  below  a certain  level  of  bio-economic  restraint, 
i.e.  to  the  level  of  physical  forces  that  have  passed  out 
of  control  in  the  system.  We  are  to  believe,  according 
to  Malthusianism  and  Darwinism,  that  to  be  imbued 
with  such  improvident  and  self-destructive  tendencies 
represents  the  normal  rule  of  life.  Moreover,  according 
to  Darwinism  we  are  to  believe  that  in  this  death-dealing 
tendency  there  lies  the  very  germ  of  life.  The  more 
thorough  this  destruction  of  luckless  numbers  (specially 
of  young)  the  better  it  is  for  the  healthy  progress  of 


INTRODUCTION 


19 


the  remainder,  according  to  Darwinism.  But,  though 
healthy  biological  progress  be  less  impeded  by  the  removal 
of  many  that  are  superfluous,  it  cannot  be  said  to  be  due 
to  or  to  consist  mainly  of  this  lethal  process.  The  rate 
of  infant  mortality  may  tell  us  a great  deal  about  a 
people,  yet  it  is  not  the  death  of  these  infants  that  builds 
up  the  nation’s  economic  and  political  utilities.  We  have 
to  look  to  its  co-operative  activities.  We  have  to  behold 
it  at  work.  In  the  same  way  we  must  look  to  work  and 
bio-economic  co-operation  if  we  wish  to  determine  the 
positive  factors  of  evolution. 

I submit  that  biological  infant-destruction  comes 
under  that  vast  evolutionary  chapter  of  pathology. 

The  majority  of  people  at  the  present  day  are  inclined 
to  place  the  devouring  of  young  animals  for  food  on  an 
exact  par  with  that  of  plant  seeds.  It  is  only  a difference 
of  appetites,  they  think.  They  see  no  fundamental 
physiological  and  bio-economic  difference  in  so  vast  a 
change  as  that  implied  by  the  transition  of  a ‘ cross- 
feeding ’ to  an  ‘ in-feeding  ’ habit.  The  popular  view  on 
these  matters,  however,  is  erroneous.  Bio-economically 
speaking,  it  is  the  duty  of  the  plant  world  to  manufacture 
the  food-stuffs  for  its  complement,  the  animal  world.  In 
so  doing  it  not  only  ensures  its  own  self-preservation  and 
that  of  the  animal,  but  improves  its  own  security  and 
status  together  with  those  of  the  animal. 

It  is  an  incontestable  fact  that  the  majority  of  the 
foods  of  the  world  are  products  of  reproduction,  in 


20 


EVOLUTION  BY  CO-OPERATION 


particular  of  plant-reproduction — ‘ love-foods  ’ in  Henry 
Drummond’s  phraseology.  This  rule  constitutes,  I 
maintain,  the  normal  (reciprocal  and  valuable)  relation 
of  animal  to  plant,  so  far  as  animal  nutrition  is  concerned, 
and,  I submit,  it  has  its  physiological  foundation  in  the 
fact  that  nutrition  entails  a kind  of  fertilisation,  deter- 
mined as  to  its  results  by  the  adequacy  of  the  preceding 
(reciprocal)  processes  of  maturation  of  the  uniting 
material  (quality.)  The  plant  is  neither  physiologically 
nor  biologically  the  poorer  for  what  is  legitimately 
taken  away  from  it  by  its  physiological  complement, 
the  animal.  On  the  contrary,  the  normal  relation 
which  provides  the  true  and  permanent  conditions  for 
the  creation  of  values  between  plant  and  animal  is  by 
no  means  one  of  depredation,  but  on  the  contrary  one 
of  co-operation.  It  is  the  outcome  of  a primordial 
division  of  labour,  which  in  the  course  of  the  evolutionary 
process  became  increasingly  perfected.  It  is  a relation 
that  cannot  without  impunity  be  violated  for  any  length 
of  time.  Those  animals  which  deviate  from  the  legiti- 
mate reciprocal  relations  are  apt  to  drift  into  redundancj', 
which  may  constitute  a nuisance  to  the  common  interests 
of  the  biological  world.  Depredation — here  as  elsewhere 
— leads  to  manifold  retaliation,  involving  in  turn  further 
aberrations,  difficulties  and  impasses.  Once  an  ab- 
normality of  metabolism  has  arisen,  organisms — just 
like  men — are  prone  to  clamour  for  just  those  things 
they  ought  not  to  have,  and  to  dislike  just  those  things 


INTRODUCTION 


21 


which  are  for  their  real  good.  Such  being  the  case,  a 
serious  and  lasting  infringement  of  the  normal  rule  may, 
by  a series  of  gradations,  lead  up  to  the  fixing  of  the 
fatal  habit  of  ‘ in-feeding,’  which  (as  I have  elsewhere 
shown  more  fully)  is  abhorred  by  nature,  just  as  is, 
according  to  Darwin,  perpetual  self-fertilisation  (in- 
breeding).  It  may  lead  up  to  what  I have  termed 
a ‘ parasitic  diathesis  ’ — that  metabolic  abnormality 
which  is  the  source  of  much  economic  sterility  and  of 
consequent  limitation  and  insecurity  of  life. 

In  the  case  of  the  food-supply  by  the  plant,  we 
see  reproduction  entering  the  service  of  bio-economic 
(reciprocal)  usefulness  with  manifestly  positive  results. 
It  is  an  arrangement  of  mutuality. 

In  the  case  of  animal  devouring  animal,  no  new 
values  are  created,  although  the  elimination  and  mutual 
destruction  of  wasteful  and  dysteleological  types  which 
take  place  may  be  viewed  as  advantageous  by  conducing, 
indirectly,  to  the  greater  security  of  the  strenuous 
community.  Biological  infant  destruction  of  this  kind 
can  scarcely  be  accounted  a direct  means  of  increasing 
organic  wealth.  It  is  a one-sided  arrangement,  depending 
upon  illegitimate  gains  in  the  absence  of  work  and  of 
mutual  service.  Whatever  its  immediate  ‘ advantage  ’ 
may  be,  it  is  sterile  as  regards  the  maturation  of 
permanent  values. 

To  bring  in  economics  as  Darwinism  does,  only  at  a 
point  where  we  behold  an  excessive  number  of  young 


22 


EVOLUTION  BY  CO-OPERATION 


fighting  each  other  for  an  insufficient  supply  of  food,  is 
in  my  opinion  to  establish  an  arbitrary  system  of  Bio- 
Economics.  It  is  beginning  at  an  abnormal  point,  at  a 
point  where  wastefulness  has  led  organisms  into  a cul- 
de-sac,  successfully  avoided  by  great  classes  of  others 
whose  economic  conduct  has  won  them  a better  destiny. 
A tendency  to  increase  in  a geometrical  ratio,  though  it 
be  a potential  attribute  of  all  types,  is  not  exercised  in 
the  case  of  the  aristocracy  of  life.  They  are  too  busily 
engaged  in  the  production  of  organic  utilities,  in  the 
maturing  and  rearing  of  higher  values — the  increasingly 
specialised  reactions  of  their  nervous  system,  in  accord- 
ance wTith  the  laws  of  compensation  implying  checks 
on  redundancy  and  acceleration  of  reproduction,  self- 
control,  prudence  and  restraint. 

By  representing  it  to  be  easier  for  things  to  be  dead 
than  living — which  is  postulating  that  the  universe  is  at 
bottom  inimical  to  life — Darwinism  makes,  in  Shake- 
speare’s words,  ‘ guilty  of  our  disasters  (often  the  surfeit 
of  our  own  behaviour)  the  sun,  the  moon,  the  stars  : as 
if  we  were  villains  on  necessity,  fools  by  heavenly 
compulsion.’ 

As  regards  the  physical  universe,  it  is  obvious  that 
life,  from  the  moment  it  functioned  physiologically, 
had  obtained  an  advantage  vis-a-vis  the  physical  forces — 
an  advantage  which  it  contrived  constantly  to  augment 
by  further  co-operative  developments.  It  was  a great 
event  in  the  evolution  of  life  on  our  globe,  which  may 


INTRODUCTION 


23 


have  involved  the  most  stupendous  efforts  to  accomplish, 
when  organisms  succeeded  in  contending  with  the 
physical  difficulties  by  means  of  division  of  labour 
and  by  specialisation. 

Once,  therefore,  this  important  economic  step  of  life 
was  accomplished  and  became  fixed  in  the  shape  of 
capacities,  the  control  of  the  physical  environment 
became  immensely  increased  by  means  of  mutual  aid 
and  consequent  improvement  of  automatic  action.  On 
the  other  hand,  the  advent  of  new  bio-economic  factors 
was  apt  to  make  for  a certain  amount  of  complexity, 
under  which  the  solidarity  of  interest  frequently  seemed 
to  vanish.  Thenceforth  the  difficulties  of  organisms  were 
of  a biological  rather  than  of  a climatic  nature.  It  is  of 
great  importance  that  these  distinctions  should  be  always 
made.  Those  organisms  which  failed  in  bio-economic 
effort  eventually  had  to  be  content  with  less  satisfactory 
surroundings.  That  many  succumbed  to  the  stress  of 
physical  circumstances,  such  as  extreme  cold,  is  true; 
but  it  is  often  a mere  matter  of  pathology. 

Failing  a recognition  of  Bio-Economics,  organisms 
had  to  be  represented  as  being  obliged  to  become  ‘ rebels  ’ 
against  Nature — equally  represented  as  niggardly  and 
mainly  red  in  tooth  and  claw.  They  had  to  form  an 
ini'perium  in  imyerio,  in  order  to  get  on  in  the  Hobbesian 
war  of  each  against  all.1  They  had  to  gain  their  advantages 

1 We  can  understand  Darwin  at  his  hour  of  day  declaring : ‘ From 
the  war  of  Nature,  from  famine  and  death,  the  most  exalted  object 


24 


EVOLUTION  BY  CO-OPERATION 


by  fair  means  or  by  foul.  Some  are  indeed  supposed  to 
have  gained  successes  by  foul  and  otiose  means.  The 
parasites  are  the  extreme  examples.  The  denial  of  the 
pathology  of  parasitism  is  a necessary  corollary  of  the 
Darwinian  theory  of  the  struggle  for  existence,  but 
really  clashes  with  the  facts  of  Nature. 

The  same  must  be  said  of  its  denial  of  the  well- 
authenticated  facts  of  the  zoological  distribution  of 
disease,  to  which  it  is  committed  by  another  corollary 
of  the  ‘ Natural  Selection  ’ theory,  viz.  that  wild 
Nature,  being  ‘ naturally  selected,’  cannot  harbour 
disease. 

The  Darwinian  theory  of  Natural  Selection,  therefore, 
possesses  no  more  than  a general  advantage  in  vaguely 
pointing  to  necessity  as  a factor  in  evolution.  It  has 
failed,  however,  to  elucidate  the  nature  of  the  various 
organismal  necessities.  Extreme  Selectionists  are  satisfied 
with  a distorted  picture  of  the  relation  of  organism  to 
universe,  with  a pseudo-economic  outlook  on  life  and  with 
a mass  of  metaphorical  and  semi-theological  verbiage 
which  ought  to  have  no  place  in  an  exact  science.  It 
has  thus  happened,  as  Huxley  apprehended,  that : ‘ The 
new  generation,  educated  under  the  influences  of  the 
present  day,  will  be  in  danger  of  accepting  the  main 
doctrines  of  the  “ Origin  of  Species  ” with  as  little 

which  we  are  capable  of  conceiving,  namely,  the  production  of  higher 
animals,  directly  follows.’  If  he  were  still  among  us,  however,  he  could 
scarcely  he  credited  to  hold  the  same  view. 


INTRODUCTION 


25 


reflection,  and  it  may  be  with  as  little  justification,  as  so 
many  of  our  contemporaries  rejected  them.’ 

The  pressure  to  which  Darwin  assigns  chief  importance 
as  a factor  in  evolution  is  that  arising  from  a remorseless 
and  chaotic  struggle  of  a multitude  of  selfish  interests, 
where  what  remains  of  ‘ usefulness  ’ is  determined  by 
personal  and  local  considerations  alone.  The  pressure  to 
which  I attach  chief  importance  is  that  which  constrains 
organisms  in  hundreds  of  ways  to  remain  physiologically 
and  biologically  co-operative,  under  penalty  of  a variety 
of  more  or  less  painful  and  more  or  less  chronic  reactions 
— the  usefulness  of  all  developments  being  determined 
by  a bio-economic  standard  of  values.  Darwin,  accord- 
ing to  an  eminent  German  writer,  ‘ has  discovered  death 
as  a factor  of  evolution.’  The  factor  that  I would  pro- 
claim as  more  important  is  that  of 4 work.’ 

Darwin  suggested  that  the  effect  of  the  interaction  of 
organism  and  nature  is  analogous  to  that  which  man  pro- 
duces consciously  in  selecting  certain  types  for  his  pur- 
poses preferably  to  others — a proposition  which  presents 
many  difficulties.  Huxley  could  give  only  very  reluctant 
adhesion.  Darwinism  is  supposed  to  have  answered  this 
question  of  analogy  4 in  the  affirmative,’  which — to  say 
the  least — is  rather  problematical,  although  in  any  case 
analogies  are  not  proofs. 

Although,  generally  speaking,  the  parallels  between 
the  evolution  of  life  and  of  the  works  of  man  lend  them- 
selves to  arguments  of  design  rather  than  of  Natural 


26 


EVOLUTION  BY  CO-OPERATION 


Selection,  we  will  concede  a certain  economic  analogy 
between  the  quasi-conscious  procedure  on  the  part  of 
Nature  in  allowing  vital  differentiations  to  arise  in  accord- 
ance with  vital  and  correlated  needs  and  the  conscious 
(though  frequently  irrational)  procedure  to  similar  though 
more  transient  and  local  effects  on  the  part  of  man. 
How  far  may  we  legitimately  carry  this  analogy  ? 
Darwin  states  that  ‘ the  origin  of  most  of  our  domestic 
animals  will  probably  for  ever  remain  vague.’  But 
was  it  not  at  least  by  antecedent  processes  of  nutrition, 
fertilisation  and  gestation,  attended  by  a fair  share  of 
autonomy  (reduced  by  domestication),  that  certain 
animals  were  eventually  enabled  to  qualify  for  a close 
association  with  man  ? After  all,  the  difference  between 
wild  and  domestic  animals  of  allied  breeds  lies  more  in 
their  disposition  and  character  than  in  their  physique, 
and  domestication  happens  but  late  in  the  evolution  of 
an  animal.  ‘ Man  can  never  act  by  selection,’  says 
Darwin,  * excepting  on  variations  which  are  first  given 
to  him  in  some  slight  degree  by  Nature.’  Nature  thus 
provides  the  all-important  primordial  conditions  and  the 
essential  subsequent  tendencies  to  variations.  Nature 
endows  and  provides.  Man  appropriates  and  consumes. 
It  may  be  said  that  man  employs  death  to  prevent  too 
great  a deterioration  of  his  domestic  breeds,  and  that 
this  bears  a resemblance  to  certain  disciplinary  and 
pathological  processes  in  nature.  But,  though  he  thus 
preserves  some  fitness  by  death  rather  than  by  eugenics, 


INTRODUCTION 


27 


his  success  is  due  to  endowments  resulting  from  con- 
structive processes  of  evolution,  viz.  those  comprising 
‘ natural  gestation.’  In  reality  man  works  by  ‘ natural 
gestation  ’ plus  modification  and  elimination.  And  thus 
it  appears  that  Darwin’s  attempt  to  formulate  a higher 
order  of  facts  in  the  terms  of  a relatively  insignificant 
order  of  facts  is  scarcely  warranted. 

Darwin,  of  course,  repudiated  ‘ conscious  choice  ’ on 
the  part  of  Nature — by  which  he  asserted  himself  to  mean 
only  ‘ the  aggregate  action  and  product  of  many  natural 
laws.’ 

If  we  are  to  reject  ‘ conscious  choice  ’ and  to  rely  upon 
‘ aggregate  action,’  upon  a great  natural  process  as  free 
as  possible  from  teleological  taints,  we  are  justified  in 
giving  most  emphasis  to  that  necessity  which  most 
obviously  possesses  directive  force  and  most  obviously  is 
concerned  with  respect  of  the  totality  of  things  organic, 
viz.  the  necessity  of  progressive  bio-economic  usefulness. 
On  due  consideration  it  will  appear  that  I am  scarcely 
giving  the  bio-economic  principle  too  much  to  do,  but  that 
Darwinism,  tacitly  though  vaguely  implying  such  a 
principle,  gives  it  too  little  to  do. 

If  some  will  identify  elimination  with  ‘ Natural  Selec- 
tion,’ it  should  at  least  be  made  quite  clear  that  elimina- 
tion is  never  the  source  of  endowment  and  qualification. 

The  standard  of  usefulness  in  a vast  bio- economic 
process  must  needs  be  wide  and  sublime  compared  with 
the  standard  of  individual  usefulness. 


28 


EVOLUTION  BY  CO-OPERATION 


Although  Darwinists  speak  of  a great  natural  process, 
they  have  no  such  reasoned  standard  of  values.  They 
are  endeavouring  instead  to  prove  their  process  in 
local  and  trifling  phenomena  which  have  the  slenderest 
connection  with  it,  and  frequently  are  due  to  patho- 
logical causes,  wdiile  they  ignore  the  wider  implica- 
tions. ‘ Natural  Selection  ’ is  supposed  to  have  the 
value  of  abetting  organisms  in  obtaining  that  wdiich 
the  particular  circumstances  of  the  moment  render 
desirable — regardless  wrhether  the  adaptation  has  a 
wider  positive  value  or  not  in  respect  of  the  self-preserva- 
tion of  the  biological  wTorld.  The  assumption,  which 
because  of  its  narrowness  forms  the  chief  obstacle  to  the 
advance  of  Bio-Economics,  is  that  ‘ Natural  Selection’  may 
‘ tend  to  simplify  or  degrade  the  organisation  ; for  a 
complicated  mechanism  for  simple  actions  would  be 
useless  or  even  disadvantageous.’  Surely  ‘ Natural 
Selection  ’ cannot  have  been  the  main  agency  responsible 
for  the  raising  of  the  organismal  world  according  to  the 
dictates  of  an  ever  more  efficient  bio-economic  co- 
operation, if  what  is  somewhat  grandiloquently  styled 
‘ the  operation  of  natural  selection  ’ is  thus  (supposedly) 
purely  a matter  of  expediency  ! Degeneration,  in  my 
view,  frequently  happens  in  spite  of  Nature  (sufficient  and 
progressive  in  her  economic  scheme).  According  to  Dar- 
winists, progress  accidentally  happens  in  spite  of  Nature 
(represented  as  niggardly  in  her  economy.)  Degeneration, 
so  far  from  being  directly  produced  by  a vast  process  of 


INTRODUCTION 


29 


Nature  involving  economics,  is,  I submit,  produced  by 
the  very  opposite — by  a prolonged  organismal  opposition 
to  the  general  economy  of  Nature.  The  chief  short- 
coming of  the  Darwinian  Selection  theory  is  its  failure 
to  define  the  parts  played  in  the  great  process  of  inter- 
action between  Nature  and  organism  by 

(a)  Autonomy,  i.e.  the  constant  power  of  the  organism 

to  make  new  combinations  (response  and  con- 
trol— Psycho-Biology) , 

(b)  Co-operation  (Bio-Economics), 

(c)  ‘ Natural  gestation  ’ (Morphogeny,  Bio-Chemistry, 

and  Eugenics). 

In  endeavouring  to  replace  ‘ Natural  Selection  ’ by 
a theory  of  bio-economic  co-operation,  I am  not  denying 
the  facts  nor  the  use  of  competition  and  of  warfare 
which  Nature  so  variously  and  abundantly  presents.  I 
am  not  even  denying  the  occasional  usefulness  of  warfare. 
Drastic  action  may  be  rendered  necessary — if  everything 
else  fails — to  break  up  states  of  stagnancy,  to  protect  and 
defend  values  of  all  kinds,  and  to  overcome  the  with- 
holding of  rightful  opportunities.  ‘ Impunity  lets  loose 
the  whole  army  of  evildoers,  and  drives  them  upon  the 
innocent,’  as  Bacon  says  in  his  Novum  Organum.  I am 
only  according  them  their  true  place  in  the  general 
economic  scheme  of  Nature,  in  which  the  co-operative 
factors,  though  ubiquitous,  are  generally  less  conspicuous 
than  the  martial.  I am  not  seeking  to  range  organisms 
by  the  side  of  angels.  I recognise — which  is  quite  a 


30 


EVOLUTION  BY  CO-OPERATION 


different  matter — that  they  are  all  ‘ condemned  to  some 
nobility  ’ ; but  that  they  are  also — individually  and 
collectively — under  the  doom  of  frailty.  This  recogni- 
tion, which  Robert  Louis  Stevenson  has  expressed  in 
eloquent  words,  I may  say,  constitutes  practically  the 
only  tenet  of  faith  required  by  my  theory. 

Neither  do  I wish  in  the  least  to  minimise  Darwin’s 
great  and  meritorious  work,  which  towers  up  unimpaired 
whether  his  Natural  Selection  theory  be  true  or  not. 
I cheerfully  acknowledge  his  wonderful  genius  well 
perceived  that  the  functional  activity  of  organisms  is 
frequently  possessed  of  a more  than  local  utility.  As 
years  went  by,  he  became  more  and  more  impressed  by 
fresh  factors  of  interaction  and  mutual  aid  as  well  as 
of  physiology,  which  he  recognised  as  easily  tending 
towards  a modification  of  his  theory.  As  Dr.  J.  A. 
Lindsay,  who  believes  that  ‘ few  men  have  had  less  reason 
than  Darwin  to  retract  any  opinion  once  definitely 
formulated,’  states  : ‘ it  is  clear  that  Darwin  wavered 
much  and  wavered  often  as  regards  the  weight  to  be 
assigned  to  external  conditions — climate,  food,  occupa- 
tion— as  factors  of  evolution.  He  was  at  one  time 
inclined  to  attribute  very  little  weight  to  such  conditions 
in  comparison  with  natural  selection  ; later  in  life  he  was 
disposed  to  assign  greater  importance  to  them.’ 1 

1 British  Medical  Journal,  November  6,  1909. 


CHAPTEB  I 


BIOLOGICAL  ECONOMY  1 

‘ Yet  if  a little  pollen  were  carried,  at  first  occasionally  and  then 
habitually,  by  the  pollen-devouring  insects  from  flower  to  flower,  and 
a cross  thus  effected,  although  nine-tenths  of  the  pollen  were  destroyed 
it  might  still  be  a great  gain  to  the  plant  to  be  thus  robbed.’ — [Darwin.) 

The  founders  of  Political  Economy  based  it  upon  the 
laws  of  Nature.  This  was  a felt  need,  so  much  so  that 
some  of  the  definitions  were  rejected  by  critics  as  too 
broad  and  including  other  sciences,  so  that  the  best  ency- 
clopaedias would  really  be  the  best  treatise  on  Political 
Economy.  It  is  as  if  the  pioneers  of  Political  Economy 
dimly  realised  its  kinship  with  Biological  (or  Natural) 
Economy.  We  shall  see  hereafter  that  many  of  their  pro- 
positions are  possessed  of  a truly  bio-economic  foundation. 

Similarly,  Biology  stood  in  need  of  Economics  to 
account  for  the  facts  of  interaction  and  competition 
in  nature.  It  is  the  undying  merit  of  the  founders  of 


1 This  chapter  represents  a paper  read  (in  part)  before  the  British 
Association  (Dundee,  1912).  I have  left  it  as  far  as  possible  intact, 
which  accounts  for  some  repetitions  in  other  parts  of  the  book. 


82 


EVOLUTION  BY  CO-OPERATION 


Darwinism,  apart  from  other  immense  contributions 
to  natural  history,  to  have  done  most  valuable  spade 
work  towards  a fuller  appreciation  of  the  economic 
significance  of  the  biological  environment.  They  con- 
sidered, however,  that  their  immediate  task  was  to 
account  for  the  vast  amount  of  extermination  incidental 
to  the  evolutionary  process.  The  positive  part  of 
evolution,  the  production  of  values,  the  building  up  of 
lasting  physiological  and  anatomic  assets,  the  incon- 
spicuous effects  of  ages  of  ‘ natural  gestation,’  for 
the  time  being  was  in  effect  shelved  under  the  headings 
of  * preservation,’  ‘ variation,’  and  ‘ heredity,’  to  which 
too  little  attention  was  subsequently  paid.  Thus  it 
happened  that  the  Malthusian  doctrine  on  population 
almost  alone  of  economic  teachings  appealed  to  Darwin 
and  his  school.  ‘ Malthus  once  grasped  and  applied,’ 
we  are  told,  ‘ Darwin  drew  no  more  drafts  upon  political 
economy.’  This  omission,  I believe,  it  is  now  necessary 
to  correct,  since  I am  convinced  that  there  is  in  the 
biological  world  as  real  and  necessary  a balance  of  mutual 
services  as  Political  Economy  has  shown  to  exist  in 
human  society,  and  it  is  the  object  of  this  chapter  to 
establish  that  proposition.  The  work  of  Malthus  rests, 
I believe,  on  a purely  empirical  and  superficial  biological 
basis,  and  I submit  that  his  generalisation,  as  employed 
by  Darwin,  viz.  that  there  is  ‘ a constant  tendency  in  all 
animated  life  to  increase  beyond  the  nourishment  pre- 
pared for  it,’  is  devoid  of  biological  sanction. 


BIOLOGICAL  ECONOMY 


The  ‘ preparation  ’ of  food  for  the  animal,  for  instance, 
is,  I maintain,  based  on  a necessary  fundamental  division 
of  labour  between  the  plant  and  animal  kingdoms, 
rendering  the  one  the  physiological  complement  of  the 
other.  So  long  and  in  so  far  as  the  powers  of  production 
and  reproduction  on  the  part  of  the  plant  are  ample, 
and  so  long  and  in  so  far  as  both  plant  and  animal  retain 
their  proper  economic  status  in  the  order  resulting  from 
this  division  of  labour,  there  is  in  my  view  no  danger  of 
a dearth  of  food.  It  is  well  known  that  the  fauna  of  a 
country  primarily  depends  on  its  flora.  It  is  not  the 
absence  of  sufficient  food-stuffs  per  se  that  is  responsible 
for  the  failure  of  many  species ; but  it  is  uneconomic 
habits  of  feeding,  which,  as  I shall  endeavour  to  show  fully 
later,  in  so  far  as  they  produce  metabolic  abnormalities 
and  insecurity  of  life — but  not  otherwise — spell  starvation 
in  the  midst  of  plenty,  and  frequently  cause  a wasteful 
production  of  a maximum  of  individuals  with  a minimum 
of  available  food  supply. 

According  to  modern  Political  Economy,  cannibalism, 
slavery,  feudal  systems  and  every  kind  of  parasitic 
nurture  are  objectionable  as  bad  economics,  spelling 
physical  and  social  disease — the  surfeited  and  submerged 
classes  alike  being  characterised  by  exaggerated  repro- 
ductive tendencies.  We  know  the  redundancy  of  tuber- 
cular stocks,  for  instance,  and  we  likewise  know  that 
‘ Rien  ne  se  peuple  comme  les  gueux.’ 

Now,  what  do  we  find  in  nature  ? The  cases  of  surfeit 


D 


34 


EVOLUTION  BY  CO-OPERATION 


and  what  I consider  extreme  uneconomic  feeding  are 
universally  attended  by  excessive,  i.e.  uneconomic  repro- 
ductions, together  with  general  degradation.  Nothing, 
for  instance,  could  be  more  uneconomic,  more  degrading 
and  more  suicidal  from  the  point  of  view  of  modern 
economic  teaching,  than  to  find  members  of  a human 
community  actually  feeding  upon  others  without  any 
return  of  services,  as  occurs  in  the  animal  world  in 
parasitism  and  in  hyper-parasitism. 

Nothing,  again,  could  be  more  uneconomical  than  the 
prodigious  multiplication  of  these  very  same  parasites, 
seeing  that  with  a maximum  of  reproductive  expenditure 
only  a minimum  of  life  can  be  sustained.  To  classify 
such  cases  as  normal  is  a fatal  error,  and  to  assert  that  the 
one  out  of  a million  which  survives  represents  a case  of 
‘ selection  ’ is  at  best  a fond  belief. 

In  these  instances  it  is  strikingly  marked  that  an 
abnormal  metabolism  distorts  every  organismal  function, 
rendering  even  the  food-supply  for  the  embryo  problema- 
tical. An  organism  which  develops  inordinate  feeding 
habits,  and  subsequently  produces  no  values,  is  handi- 
capped in  the  matter  of  providing  at  least  for  its  own 
offspring.  It  is  in  true  prodigal  fashion  living  on  family 
capital,  but  presently  its  career  of  dissipation  meets 
with  an  effective  check  in  the  shape  of  inability  to 
meet  its  own  excessive  reproductive  demands.  This, 
as  is  well  known,  often  involves  the  sacrifice  of  the 
mother  owing  to  the  absence  of  adequate  margins  of 
nutrition. 


BIOLOGICAL  ECONOMY 


35 


Thus  the  larvae  of  the  dipterous  midge  Miastor  literally 
feed  upon  the  mother  to  the  death — a process  that  may  go 
on  for  several  generations.  The  same  cause  produces 
paedogenesis,  an  untimely  acceleration  of  reproduction.1 
The  trematode  worm  Gyrodactylus  exhibits  three  genera- 
tions of  embryos,  one  within  the  other,  while  the  oldest 
is  yet  unborn.  The  daughter  is  ready,  at  the  moment  of 
her  birth,  to  give  birth  to  another  daughter.  ‘ Quod 
observatum  fere  est,  celerius  occidere  festinatam  maturi- 
tatem  ’ — early  maturity  followed  by  early  decay,  according 
to  a Roman  writer. 

There  can  be  little  doubt  that  these  cases  represent 
an  abuse  of  nutritional  and  reproductive  functions.  The 
same  methods  apply — only  in  a minor  degree — to  the 
intermediate  stages  of  metabolic  and  economic  abnor- 
malities. A carnivorous  Drosera  has  been  richly  provided 
with  insects,  and  the  production  of  seeds  was  thus  artifi- 
cially raised  to  five  times  what  it  was  in  the  unsurfeited 
condition — an  example  of  prolificness  through  inordinate 
feeding. 

A stimulating  nutrition,  as  also  sluggishness,  are 
acknowledged  to  favour  the  retention  of  double  sexuality, 
and,  moreover,  to  aggravate  it  by  abrogating  the  restraint 
of  natural  periodicity  and  inducing  self-fertilisation,  just 
as  seasonal  parthenogenesis  may  be  artificially  aggravated 

1 ‘ Retardation  of  the  period  of  reproduction  ’ was  recognised  by 
Darwin  as  a mode  of  ‘ transition  ’ [evolution],  while  he  hints  at  the 
possibility  of  a loss  of  the  adult  stage  of  development  through  [undue  ?] 
acceleration. 


36 


EVOLUTION  BY  CO-OPERATION 


by  keeping  up  the  particular  excitants  and  the  ‘ nutritive 
optimum.’  Redundancy  thus  produced  by  bad  organismal 
choice  and  excess  cannot  in  justice  be  charged  upon 
natural  laws. 

On  the  other  hand,  there  are  in  almost  every  group 
of  the  animal  kingdom  certain  members  producing  a 
small  number  of  young  and  sedulously  guarding  these 
during  the  perilous  time  of  youth.  These  are  the  normal 
and  most  important  types  amongst  whom  gregariousness 
and  sociability  are  specially  marked.  They  have  de- 
veloped and  retained  a habit  of  moderation  in  matters 
of  nutrition  and  of  reproduction,  and  likewise  an  instinc- 
tive apprehension  of  the  contingencies  of  their  external 
circumstances.  A tendency  to  increase  in  a geometrical 
ratio  may  be  said  to  be  one  of  their  potential  attributes, 
as  indeed  it  is  of  all  types,  but  it  is  not  exercised  except 
under  abnormal  conditions. 

They  are  said  to  belong  to  the  aristocracy  of  each 
division  of  the  animal  kingdom,  and  their  relatively  high 
position  is  indeed  one  of  qualification.  As  the  scale  of 
life  is  ascended,  not  only  are  the  numbers  in  the  family 
reduced,  but  the  period  of  youth  becomes  longer  and  the 
young  have  opportunities  of  developing  those  habits 
which  are  the  foundation  of  the  real  wealth  of  the  organic 
family.  Security  of  life,  the  great  essential  of  industry, 
is  enhanced. 

The  constant  tendency  in  normal  life  is  thus  towards 
restraint,  favouring  maintenance  of  vital  external  cor- 
relations pari  passu  with  the  internal  correlations,  in  the 


BIOLOGICAL  ECONOMY 


37 


interest  of  specific  excellence  and  of  the  production  of 
higher  economic  values.  As  Dr.  Chalmers  Mitchell  has 
well  pointed  out,  the  duration  of  the  period  of  youth  could 
not  well  be  regarded  as  necessary  only  for  the  develop- 
ment of  the  adult  structure,  but  must  have  some  deeper- 
seated  advantage,  which  in  his  view  was  that  parental 
care  in  guarding  and  feeding  the  young  was  increasingly 
called  into  play. 

Indeed  it  must  have  had  a more  far-reaching  advantage 
than  mere  immediate  usefulness  to  the  individual.  The 
explanation  is,  I believe,  that  these  aristocratic  adaptations, 
if  I may  call  them  so,  are  particularly  marked  as  partaking 
of  a general  biological  utility.  And  it  is  for  this  reason 
that  I find  myself  in  agreement  with  the  declaration  of 
Professors  Thomson  and  Geddes,  in  their  latest  joint 
production,  that  ‘ all  these  survivals  of  the  truly  fittest, 
through  love  and  sacrifice,  sociability  and  co-operation, 
simple  to  complex,  need  far  other  prominence  than 
they  can  possibly  receive  even  by  some  mildewing 
attenuation  of  the  classic  economic  hypothesis  of  the 
progress  of  the  species  essentially  through  the  inter- 
necine struggle  among  its  individuals  at  the  margin 
of  subsistence.’ 

These,  then,  are  the  types  that  have  fought  a battle 
royal  for  life,  reaping  from  their  heroic  striving  for  an 
ampler  life  increased  length  of  days  for  young  and  adult 
alike,  and  a consequent  real  enhancement  of  life  all  round, 
as  against  mere  multiplication  of  lower  forms.  Theirs  is 
the  effort  for  life  to  which  I attach  importance,  the  effort 


88 


EVOLUTION  BY  CO-OPERATION 


to  obtain  a higher  and  more  valuable  life.  All  the 
difficulties  and  dangers  to  which  organisms  are  subjected 
are  trifling  in  comparison  with  the  importance  of  their 
fulfilment  of  these  tasks.  Many  of  these  difficulties  are 
positively  helpful  in  favouring  the  exercise  of  due  restraint; 
but  others  arise  solely  from  faulty  action  of  the  organism 
itself.  There  is,  I maintain,  a principle  in  Nature  which, 
complied  with,  spells  preservation  or  better,  and,  disobeyed, 
spells  deterioration  or  worse ; but  it  is  not  a natural  se- 
lection, in  the  narrow  sense  of  competition  for  food : it 
is  the  fundamental  economic  necessity  of  contributing 
to  general  utility.  Henry  Drummond  has  aptly  pointed 
out  that  ‘ the  Struggle  for  Life,  in  the  first  instance,  is 
simply  living  itself ; at  the  best,  it  is  living  under  a 
healthy  normal  maximum  of  pressure ; at  the  worst, 
under  an  abnormal  maximum.’ 

Quality  rather  than  mere  reproduction  is  the  criterion 
of  success  and  of  a successful  struggle  for  existence.  The 
tendency  to  exist  is  not  necessarily  identical  with  the 
tendency  to  reproduce.1  On  the  contrary,  the  latter 
may  be  the  condition  of  death  rather  than  of  existence. 
Pliny  the  Elder,  in  his  ‘ Natural  History,’  already  pointed 
out  ‘ Voluptas  vivere  ccepit,  vita  ipsa  desiit,’  and  Goette 
goes  so  far  as  to  say  : ‘ It  is  not  death  that  makes 

1 According  to  E.  Thompson  Seton,  the  blue  foxes  in  Alaska  are  so 
strictly  monogamous  that  it  is  extremely  hard  to  get  a widowed  fox 
to  mate,  and  a hunter  reported  to  the  Senate : ‘ Until  we  can  break 
down  the  high  moral  standard  of  the  foxes  our  profits  will  be  greatly 
curtailed.’ 


BIOLOGICAL  ECONOMY 


39 


reproduction  necessary,  but  reproduction  has  death  as 
its  inevitable  consequence.’ 

Not  to  dissipate  endowment  by  reproductive  indul- 
gence, but  on  the  contrary  to  increase  it  by  adequate 
services  and  productions  prior  to  reproduction,  to  assist 
in  ‘ the  long-enduring  gestation  of  Nature,’  as  Chambers 
has  it : these  are  the  great  tasks  of  organisms,  for  which 
indeed  we  find  them  making  the  greatest  sacrifices. 
I affirm  that  exercise  of  restraint  is  the  normal  rule 
of  life:  that  reproduction  is  in  the  first  place  sub- 
ordinate to  the  production  of  bio-economic  values, 
and  that,  further,  what  competition  and  elimination 
take  place  in  Nature  are  by  way  of  adjustment  and 
of  mutual  accommodation  in  respect  of  such  values. 
Excellence  in  the  long  run  alone  can  confer  values ; 
mere  bulk  and  mere  numbers  are  of  no  consequence. 
There  are  opportunities  for  all  organisms  to  rise  higher 
in  the  scale,  according  to  an  indefinite  improvableness, 
by  complying  with  Nature’s  claim  for  reciprocal  service. 
Beyond  the  ‘ struggle  ’ for  existence  is  the  ‘ struggle  ’ for 
a better  existence.  In  the  ‘ struggle  ’ for  the  life  of  others 
Drummond  sees  an  opening  appointed  in  the  physical 
order  for  the  introduction  of  the  moral  order. 

The  adoption  of  the  narrower  Malthusian  generalisa- 
tion by  Darwinism  has,  however,  retarded  the  investiga- 
tions of  the  wider  factors  of  nutrition  and  their  relation 
to  reproduction,  as  it  has  likewise  retarded  the  investiga- 
tion into  the  nature  and  extent  of  the  ‘ rudimentary 


40 


EVOLUTION  BY  CO-OPERATION 


ethical  process,’  which  even  Huxley  admitted  when  he 
stated  that  ‘ even  in  these  rudimentary  forms  of  society 
love  and  fear  come  into  play  and  enforce  a greater  or  less 
renunciation  of  self-will.’ 

The  word  ‘ prepared  ’ in  the  Malthusian  formula 
obviously  does  not  allow  sufficiently  for  the  possibilities 
of  food  production  through  useful  bio-economic  activity,  of 
which  more  anon,  and  the  whole  Malthusian  proposition 
is  based  on  the  common  fallacy  that  no  discrimination  as 
regards  quality  and  quantity  of  food  is  required  on  the 
part  of  organisms. 

I submit  that  Malthus’  formula  should  be  modified 
thus : ‘ Among  the  various  tendencies  manifested  by 
frail  animate  life,  there  is  apt  to  arise  a dangerous  tendency 
to  sluggishness  and  surfeit,  which,  if  allowed  to  spread, 
results  in  the  under-production  of  nourishment  and 
simultaneous  over-production  of  inferior  individuals. 
This  tendency  produces  friction  which  may  assume 
serious  aspects  of  disease — physical,  social  and  economic — 
and  is  maintained  until  a healthier  economic  balance  is 
restored  by  the  reversion  of  organisms  to  their  true  and 
reciprocal  bio-economic  functions.’  The  tendency  to 
increase  is  by  no  means  always  uniform.  The  law  of 
population  accords  with,  and  is  subordinate  to,  the 
law  of  qualitative  development.  I shall  endeavour 
further  to  justify  these  views  by  a number  of  bio-economic 
and  physiological  considerations. 

An  organism  lias  been  defined  as  a greater  or  less 


BIOLOGICAL  ECONOMY 


41 


number  of  definite  parts  or  elements,  generally  of  diverse 
nature,  but  which  possess  intimate  relations  among  them- 
selves. These  parts  must  have  a meaning  for  each  other  ; 
they  must  have  something  to  spare  for  and  to  exchange 
with  each  other.  In  short,  organisation,  i.e.  specialisation 
of  function,  implies  co-operation,  i.e.  social  activity,  and 
I therefore  maintain  that  the  relation  of  parts  must 
approximate  to  the  condition  of  trade  in  the  human 
community,  where  no  member  can  more  than  temporarily 
suffer  or  rejoice  by  itself,  and  where  an  apparent  advantage 
to  one  gained  through  the  misfortune  of  another  is  only 
superficial. 

The  pre-requisites  of  trade  are  the  division  of  labour 
and  the  production  of  surpluses  for  exchange.  The 
true  co-operative  spirit  in  commerce  presupposes  that 
both  parties  are  benefited.  The  co-operative  principle, 
however,  is  so  complex  and  silent  in  its  operations  that 
we  are  largely  unconscious  of  its  ubiquity  in  nature  as 
well  as  in  human  society. 

The  ends  in  human  society  are  the  same  as  in  Nature  : 
i.e.  to  secure  with  ever-increasing  efficiency  the  production 
and  storage  of  energies  that  go  to  sustain  and  to  help  to 
advance  life,  to  produce  a maximum  of  organic  and  social 
utilities  with  a minimum  of  organic  cost ; and  in  fact 
it  will  be  found  that  a not  inconsiderable  part  of  the 
labour  of  organisms  is  employed  in  the  storage  of  energies 
which  enable  them  to  produce  bio-economic  values  for 
the  benefit  of  the  organic  world.  It  may  be  noted  here 


42 


EVOLUTION  BY  CO-OPERATION 


that  the  process  above  emphasised  implies  the  systematic 
raising  of  physical  to  the  rank  of  physiological  forces. 

This  work  is  tacitly  implied  when  we  state,  for  instance, 
that  the  morphological  position  of  a species  in  the  system 
is  physiologically  founded,  and,  philosophically  speaking, 
one  might  say  that  organic  evolution  represents  the 
work  done  by  a particular  organic  impulse  called  life 
against  the  inertia  of  physical  forces. 

One  might  say  that  life  carries  on  a trade  with  energies, 
using  the  organismal  world  as  reservoirs  of  the  ensuing 
wealth  by  pressing  their  productive  and  reproductive 
potentialities  into  its  service,  part  of  the  gain  being  that 
organisms  are  continuously  being  made  into  ever  better 
instruments  of  life,  more  and  more  to  function  purposively, 
i.e.  according  to  the  dictates  of  life  rather  than  the 
dictates  of  physical  causality.  In  any  case,  and  however 
this  may  be,  in  the  study  of  organic  life  we  can  never  get 
away  from  the  actuality  of  economic  aspects. 

Organisms  are  thus  constitutionally  made  for  work 
entailing  the  production  of  exchangeable  values,  and  main- 
tenance of  organisation  itself  implies  adequate  restraint 
in  many  directions.  This  is  all  that  the  statement  that 
* organisms  are  full  of  purposiveness,  even  when  they 
have  no  brains  for  holding  a purpose,’  can  well  imply. 
An  organism  is  itself  a monument  to  the  co-operative 
principle. 

Just  as  there  is  a primordial  necessity  for  every  organ- 
ism to  arise  through  the  primitive  unicellular  condition, 


BIOLOGICAL  ECONOMY 


48 


so  there  is  a primordial  necessity  to  maintain  regularisation 
of  function  and  symmetry  of  form  as  essentials  of  organisa- 
tion by  adequate  economic  habits  of  life.  In  both  cases 
the  economic  factors  are  the  most  important ; indeed  it  is 
part  of  the  function  of  the  fertilisation  process  to  correct 
as  far  as  possible  irregularities  produced  by  uneconomic 
habits,  and  to  restore  the  individual  to  the  balance  of 
Nature  by  means  of  maturation  (or  reduction)  processes. 

It  is  one  of  the  essential  and  typical  characteristics 
of  an  organism  (when  still  in  the  unicellular  state)  to 
unite  and  coalesce  with  another  organism  for  a common 
purpose,  and  in  the  most  marvellous  way,  so  far  as  nicety 
of  proportions  is  concerned.  The  common  purpose  is 
largely  an  economic  purpose,  and  such  a wonderful  sense 
of  proportion  is  shown  in  this  vital  process  that  I consider 
it  one  of  my  justifications  for  looking  upon  all  distorted 
proportions  of  form  as  negative  or  pathological  develop- 
ments— the  outcome  of  uneconomic  function.  The  so- 
called  struggle  of  parts — where  it  does  take  place  either 
on  the  embryonic  or  on  the  adult  scale — must  be  viewed, 
I maintain,  as  an  attempt  at  restoration  of  the  normal 
economic  and  physiological  balance,  consequent  upon 
wasteful  habits. 

In  so  far  as  organisms  are  reproductive  as  well  as 
productive,  they  are  not  only  themselves,  but  more  than 
themselves : they  are  systems  linking  the  past  with  the 
future.  As  they  owe  much  to  the  past,  so  they  owe  much 
to  those  that  are  to  come  ; their  constitution  condemns 


44 


EVOLUTION  BY  CO-OPERATION 


them  to  be  debtors,  trustees  and  traders  ; nor  can  they 
get  away  from  the  discharge  of  their  obligations.  Part 
of  the  discharge  of  their  social  duties  is  made  by  way  of 
‘ preparing  ’ the  food  supply  for  the  embryo,  another  by 
way  of  care  and  education  of  offspring.  ‘ Without  gratis 
benefit  to  offspring  and  earned  benefits  to  adults,  life 
could  not  have  continued,’  says  Herbert  Spencer. 

As  social  beings  we  find  organisms  linked  together 
much  in  the  same  way  as  the  parts  of  an  organism,  when 
they  yield  some  kind  of  advantage  to  one  another,  when 
they  stand  in  the  relation  of  economic  and  sympathetic 
persons  to  each  other.  First  we  have  simple  multiplica- 
tion of  units,  which  function  together  economically  and 
sympathetically,  i.e.  gaining  something  by  mutuality 
and  co-operation,  and  then  by  diversification  of  function. 
The  social  factor  is  the  most  important — leading  to  mutual 
advantage,  to  mutual  forbearance  and  defence,  to  security, 
to  production,  to  exchange,  and,  hence,  to  all-round  gain. 
Darwin  remarked  : 4 The  advantage  of  diversification  of 
structure  in  the  inhabitants  of  the  same  region  is,  in  fact, 
the  same  as  that  of  the  physiological  division  of  labour 
in  the  organs  of  the  same  body.  So,  in  the  general 
economy  of  any  land,  the  more  widely  and  perfectly  the 
animals  and  plants  are  diversified  for  different  habits  of 
life,  so  will  a greater  number  of  individuals  be  capable 
of  there  supporting  themselves.’  Diversification  of  func- 
tion in  the  interest  of  general  utility  and  of  quality  rather 
than  of  quantity — that  is  the  great  principle  which  is  also 


BIOLOGICAL  ECONOMY 


45 


borne  out  in  the  matter  of  cross-breeding  and  cross- 
feeding, to  which  I shall  have  to  recur  later. 

Organisms  have  from  an  early  date  become  inextric- 
ably involved  in  interdependence,  which  interdependence 
has  almost  attained  the  force  of  a contrat  social,  so 
much  so  that,  wherever  the  household  of  Nature  is  con- 
cerned, the  words,  ‘ task,’  ‘ duty,’  4 legitimacy  ’ are  applic- 
able to  all  organisms.  Facts  of  interdependence  have 
often  been  pointed  out,  though  perhaps  not  with  the 
emphasis  which  they  deserve.  I should  say  that  the  signifi- 
cance of  existing  organisation  consists  in  having  contracted 
in  the  course  of  evolution  a definite  economic  function 
rendering  the  particular  organism  an  efficient  economic 
instrument  in  the  organic  world.  The  ups  and  downs  in 
the  natural  history  of  the  organism  have  depended  largely 
on  the  degree  of  loyalty  to  contract,  and  though  a pro- 
gressive transformation  may  have  taken  place,  a similar 
quasi-contract  is  always  implied.  They  have  depended 
likewise  to  some  extent  on  the  behaviour  of  other  links 
in  the  economic  chain.  Thus  it  has  rightly  been  pointed 
out  that  the  evolution  of  the  horse  is  wrapped  up  with  the 
evolution  of  the  plains.  The  basis  of  right  and  wrong 
lies  further  back  than  what  are  ordinarily  understood  as 
social  relations  ; it  begins  with  mutual  economic  relations. 
The  common  interests  which  have  compelled  economic 
relations  involve  a positive  or  negative  value,  i.e.  social 
usefulness  or  the  reverse  of  each  individual  or  species  in 
the  degree  that  they  aid  or  hinder  the  well-being  of  all. 


46 


EVOLUTION  BV  CO-OPERATION 


Constitution,  social  and  psychic  factors,  economic 
interaction,  all  taken  into  consideration,  we  may,  there- 
fore, consider  organisms  among  other  things  as  economic 
persons,  as  traders  by  nature,  whose  mutual  activities 
constantly  enhance  their  biological  status.  It  is  normal 
for  an  organism  to  produce  values,  moreover  exchange- 
able values,  to  render  mutual  services,  and  to  earn  its 
food  rather  than  to  find  it  ‘ prepared  ’ for  it,  and  Seneca’s 
saying  that  ‘ ubicumque  homo  est,  ibi  beneficii  locus  est,’ 
applies  to  all  normally  functioning  organisms. 

In  Political  Economy  two  things  must  concur  in 
the  production  of  value,  namely  the  thing  to  be 
wrought  or  used,  and  a person  to  work  or  use  it,  and 
it  is  obvious  that  without  the  ‘ earth  ’ men  would  not 
produce  wealth.  This  holds  equally  good  of  all  ranks  of 
organisms,  especially  if  in  our  conception  of  wealth  we 
are  not  too  materialistic,  if  we  are  prepared  to  concede 
that  true  wealth  consists  in  heritable  and  traditional 
assets,  in  power  of  control,  in  capacity,  in  emotional  and 
intellectual  endowment,  rather  than  in  the  possession 
of  commodities. 

We  have  seen  how  an  organism  by  all  its  circumstances 
is,  in  Stevenson’s  words,  ‘ condemned  to  some  nobility,’ 
in  particular  to  that  of  loyalty  to  obligations  once  con- 
tracted by  the  species.  We  have  likewise  seen  that  to 
produce  or  not  to  produce — rather  than  merely  consume 
and  reproduce — that  is  the  question.  If  the  sum  total 
of  a nation’s  activity  is  summed  up  by  the  word  ‘ trade  ’ 


BIOLOGICAL  ECONOMY 


47 


and  on  the  balance  of  trade  depends  the  position  of  a 
nation  in  the  greater  community  of  nations,  and  con- 
sequently its  own  well-being,  we  may  with  equal  justice 
say  that  the  balance  between  living  things  and  their 
surroundings  is  kept  by  an  economic  law  according  to 
which  those  who  do  not  produce  become  debtor  commu- 
nities, falling  back  in  varying  degree  as  regards  position 
and  environment.  They  are  of  relatively  little  conse- 
quence, except  that  they  may  easily  become  a danger  to 
the  strenuous  community  through  the  disease  they  set  up. 

Now,  the  leading  principles  of  international  commerce 
have  been  stated  thus : ‘ In  the  exchange  of  commodities 
between  different  nations,  as  between  different  individuals, 
the  tendency  of  the  exchange  is  always  to  an  equilibrium ; 
that  is,  that  a given  amount  of  labour,  regulated  by  a 
given  amount  of  skill,  of  one  nation,  should  exchange  for  an 
equal  amount  of  equally  skilled  labour  of  another  . . , 
It  is  a matter  of  complete  indifference  in  what  sort  of 
commodities  any  community  pays  a particular  balance 
against  it.  The  advantage  of  the  exchange  consists 
in  the  fact  that  each  gets  an  article  it  wants  in  place  of 
an  article  it  does  not  want,  an  article  of  which  its  supply 
is  deficient,  or  which  it  has  not  at  all,  in  place  of  an 
article  of  which  its  supply  is  superabundant.  The 
whole  exports  and  imports  of  a community  must,  in 
general,  be  periodically  balanced.  There  are  communities, 
as  well  as  individuals,  which  have  a tendency  to  five  upon 
credit,  and  sometimes  imports  may  be  gained  in  this  way 


48 


EVOLUTION  BY  CO-OPERATION 


for  which  no  substantial  return  is  ever  made;  but, generally- 
speaking,  balances  of  national  trade  cannot  be  per- 
manently run  up,  so  that  the  whole  exports  of  a com- 
munity during  a considerable  period,  such  as  a con- 
secutive series  of  years,  may  be  taken  as  the  measure  of 
its  importing  power,  and  vice  versa.’ 

Here  we  have  most  important  considerations  which, 
I believe,  are  strictly  applicable  also  to  Biology.  More- 
over, the  trend  of  international  and  indeed  of  all  commerce 
is  to  reduce  waste  and  to  increase  mutual  aid  and 
efficiency.  Competition  serves  but  as  an  instrument  in 
the  co-operative  process.  In  this  sense  it  has  long 
appeared  that  the  laws  of  trade  are  also  the  laws  of 
Nature,  for  in  Nature  also  we  find  that  it  is  only  the 
economically  useful  types  who  are  able  to  adapt  them- 
selves to  the  demands  of  time  and  to  keep  pace  with  the 
increasing  demands  for  physiological  and  economic 
efficiency.  If  the  plant  world  is,  physiologically,  the 
complement  of  the  animal  world,  the  relation  of  the  two 
kingdoms  is  also  a typical  example  of  an  exchange  of 
values  produced  in  superabundance  on  the  one  hand  for 
values  the  supply  of  which  is  deficient.  What  was  said 
about  the  measure  of  ‘ importing  power  ’ is  equally 
important  and  illustrative  of  what  happens  in  the  house- 
hold of  Nature.  What  services  and  position  a species 
may  command  depends  entirely  upon  its  productions  ; 
gaining  imports  by  short  cuts  and  living  upon  credit, 
all  such  one-sided  arrangements  ultimately  lead  to 


BIOLOGICAL  ECONOMY 


49 


physiological  bankruptcy  and  to  biological  reactions  or 
affinities  of  a negative  order.  In  the  biological  com- 
munity in  the  long  run,  species  are  measured  by  what  they 
can  4 export,’  i.e.  by  what  they  can  afford  by  way  of 
values  and  of  service,  by  what  they  can  produce  over 
and  above  mere  sustenance.  The  actual  position  of  a 
plant  in  the  scale  of  evolution,  for  instance,  is  according 
to  its  productiveness  of  values.  The  primitive  groups 
of  higher  plants,  such  as  mosses  and  ferns  and  gymno- 
sperms,  do  not  contain  by  far  as  many  different  substances 
as  the  phanerogams.  All  the  numerous  glycosides,  most 
alkaloids,  and  the  bitter  principles  occur  in  the  phanero- 
gamic groups.  The  lowest  plants  of  the  classes  algae 
and  fungi  in  general  contain  only  the  widespread  organic 
compounds,  such  as  fats,  carbohydrates,  or  proteids. 
The  lichens,  a highly  developed  symbiotic  group  of 
fungi,  alone  contain  a greater  number  of  specific  organic 
compounds  belonging  to  the  class  of  benzine-derivatives. 
The  lowest  algae  and  fungi,  as  well  as  the  bacteria,  have 
essentially  the  chemical  composition  of  protoplasm. 
The  plant  thus  produces  values  for  others  over  and  above 
its  need  for  sustenance  and  self-preservation.  Whether 
or  not  we  assent  to  the  idea  of  a universal  desire  of  well- 
doing, the  facts  are  that  the  enumeration  of  such  values 
produced  by  the  plant  would  fill  volumes.1  From  time 

1 The  wealth  of  the  world  at  the  present  day  consists  of  grains  and 
vegetable  products  rather  than  of  gold  and  silver.  Be  it  also  remem- 
bered that  the  introduction  of  the  potato  added  millions  to  the  popu- 
lation of  Europe. 

E 


50 


EVOLUTION  BY  CO-OPERATION 


immemorial  plant  and  animal  have  known  how  to  produce 
exchangeable  values,  and  have  freely  exchanged  them 
to  their  mutual  benefit.  Most  striking  examples  of 
animal  service  are  those  rendered  in  ‘ cross-fertilisation  ’ 
and  in  the  distribution  of  seeds.  Thus  when  Grant  Allen 
tells  us  that  ‘ the  insect  has  thus  turned  the  whole  surface 
of  the  earth  into  a boundless  flower-garden,  which  supplies 
him  from  year  to  year  with  pollen  or  honey,  and  itself 
in  turn  gains  perpetuation  by  the  baits  that  it  offers  for 
his  allurement,’  he  states  in  other  words  that  both 
insect  and  flower  have  contrived  to  produce  exchangeable 
values  and  to  export  and  to  exchange  them,  thereby 
not  only  increasing  their  own  wealth  but  in  addition 
being  of  surpassing  service  to  the  rest  of  life,  rendering 
possible  the  advent  of  higher  stages  with  whose  well- 
being they  are  thus  inextricably  bound  up.  Nay,  more, 
the  study  of  the  contrivances  to  achieve  cross-fertilisation 
and  of  the  ‘ meaning  of  fruits  ’ entitles  us  to  say  that  the 
plant  places  not  only  its  general  energies  but  its  very 
reproductive  powers — not  as  mere  baits,  but  syste- 
matically, and  with  enormous  consequences  generally — 
at  the  service  of  the  animal  in  order  that  it  may  in  ex- 
change obtain  the  boon  of  cross-fertilisation.  And  this 
also  enhances  the  significance  of  reproduction  as  an 
economic  factor.  Reproduction  derives  its  significance 
from  the  previous  productions  and  from  the  status  of  the 
parents,  and  it  is  therefore  a qualitative  rather  than  a 
quantitative  factor.  Economic  individuals — so  long  as 


BIOLOGICAL  ECONOMY 


51 


they  function  legitimately — are  indeed  important  factors 
and  assets  in  wealth  production.  But  reproduction 
per  se — apart  from  quality — has  no  terrors,  because  it 
cannot  have  an  abiding  place  in  the  never-idle  workshop 
of  nature.  Organisms  normally  reproduce  precisely  in 
so  far  as  they  have  to  maintain  values  produced  by  long- 
continued  cumulative  efforts  of  their  species,  which  it  is 
beyond  the  power  of  the  individual  adequately  to 
maintain  for  any  length  of  time  ; because  they  are 
carriers  of  values  over  and  above  the  value  of  the  in- 
dividual, because  they  have  to  preserve  the  organic 
community  from  loss  of  values,  and  because  their  specific 
value  is  to  be  of  avail  in  the  interests  of  the  common  good. 
Higher  production  is  the  purport  of  the  fertilisation 
process,  and  fertilisation  itself  is  frequently  as  dearly 
purchased  as  is  cross-fertilisation  by  the  plant.  Thus 
Maupas  found  that  with  infusoria  the  costliness  of  con- 
jugation was  immensely  higher  than  that  of  fission,  and 
that  while  one  pair  were  indulging  in  a single  conjugation, 
another  had  become,  by  asexual  division,  the  ancestor 
of  from  forty  to  fifty  thousand  individuals,  which  I 
interpret  as  meaning  that  it  is  quality  rather  than  quantity 
that  is  of  consequence,  and  that  this  quality  has  to  be 
referred  to  an  inter-biological  standard.  Why  else  should 
fertilisation  occur  at  all  ? A mere  local  consideration 
does  not  seem  to  indicate  that  the  organism  is  better  off 
with  conjugation  than  with  fission  ; on  the  contrary. 
But  a wider  consideration  shows  that  the  latter  may 


52 


EVOLUTION  BY  CO-OPERATION 


easily  be  the  mode  of  stagnancy  and  indulgence,  which 
not  only  provide  no  margin  for  ‘ export  ’ but  are  causes  of 
positive  danger  to  the  organic  community.  A due  con- 
sideration of  various  facts  associated  with  the  fertilisation 
process  is  apt  to  emphasise  the  qualitative  element  in 
reproduction.  As  a German  writer  expresses  it : ‘It  is 
not  that  germ-cells  unite  in  order  that  a new  individual 
may  arise,  but  it  is  rather  that  the  new  individual  takes 
its  origin  from  the  single  cell  resulting  from  conjugation 
in  order  that  a mingling  of  qualities  may  take  place.’ 
The  essence  of  fertilisation  thus  seems  to  be  the  raising 
of  the  level  of  being  through  amphimixis,  which  seems 
also  to  be  borne  out  by  such  facts  as  prepotency  of  pollen 
among  plants  and  of  self-sterility,  especially  in  those 
cases  where  the  pollen  from  the  same  flowers  acts  on  the 
stigma  like  a poison. 

In  Hatschek’s  opinion  the  function  of  fertilisation  is 
that  ‘ of  checking  variation  and  holding  the  species  true 
to  the  specific  type,’  which  in  my  view  is  tantamount  to 
saying  that  it  holds  the  species  true  to  its  bio-economic 
position. 

To  return  to  cross-fertilisation,  I would  say  that  it  is 
responsible  for  a great  part  of  the  wealth  of  the  flowering 
plant.  Self-fertilisation,  on  the  other  hand,  is  inferior 
in  organic  wealth  production,  much  in  the  same  way  as 
the  exclusion  of  a nation  from  foreign  trade  injures  it 
in  its  economic  welfare  and  renders  it  poorer  in  aggregate 
wealth.  I concur  with  Darwin’s  famous  aphorism  that 


BIOLOGICAL  ECONOMY 


58 


‘ Nature  abhors  'perpetual  self-fertilisation,’  but,  I add, 
the  reason  is  its  combined  bio-economic  and  physiological 
sterility. 

I therefore  consider  the  superabundant  (and  apparently 
wasteful)  production  of  pollen  by  some  plants  in  order 
to  achieve  cross-fertilisation  as  work  done  by  way  of 
keeping  up  ‘ exports.’  In  the  case  of  Linaria  vulgaris, 
in  Darwin’s  classical  experiments  the  crossed  plants 
proved  more  vigorous  than  the  self-fertilised,  and  Darwin 
tells  us  that  ‘ bees  incessantly  visit  the  flowers  of  this 
Linaria  and  carry  pollen  from  one  to  another.’  Here 
we  have  a classical  instance  of  a wholesome  trade, 
attended  by  regular  systematic  activities,  by  a large 
measure  of  stability  and  security,  and  by  wholesome 
results  generally. 

This  biological  trade,  it  seems,  established  itself  very 
much  in  the  same  way  as  human  trade.  First,  the  allure- 
ment of  the  article  which  the  animal  itself  could  not 
produce,  but  was  in  need  of.  This  led  to  mere  appro- 
priation. But  a one-sided  arrangement  would  not  give 
lasting  satisfaction.  There  had  to  be  regularisation 
of  affinities ; there  had  to  be  give  and  take.  The  arrange- 
ment would  have  been  devoid  of  permanent  elements 
and  opposed  to  organic  self-preservation  had  it  been 
for  any  length  of  time  merely  detrimental  to  the  plant 
which  surrendered  values  and  gained  nothing  in  return. 
Thus,  in  course  of  long  ages,  mutually  satisfactory  con- 
trivances were  evolved,  and  the  intrusion  of  unwelcome 


54 


EVOLUTION  BY  CO-OPERATION 


insects  was  prevented.  It  is  said  that  the  one  aim  of 
all  these  respective  modifications  of  structure  is  to 
economise  the  pollen  and  ensure  its  use  for  fertilisation, 
which  indicates  that,  in  this  instance  at  any  rate,  there 
is  not  an  inherent  lavishness  of  reproduction,  and  that 
the  aim  is  not  merely  numbers,  but  rather  the  provision 
of  a purchase  consideration  for  further  desirable  develop- 
ments. With  the  advent  of  honey-bearing  many  plants, 
however,  have  contrived  an  economy  of  pollen-production. 
Thus,  for  instance,  we  may  say  that  fruits,  seeds,  nectar, 
leaves,  oils  and  other  valuable  vegetable  substances 
indispensable  in  animal  development  are  the  currency 
in  which  the  plant  pays,  and  from  its  own  status  can 
well  afford  to  pay,  for  counter  services  on  the  part  of  the 
animal.  The  plant  is  not  the  poorer  but  the  richer  and 
the  healthier  for  what  is  legitimately  taken  from  it. 
That  perpetual  depredation  in  these  relations,  however, 
is  abhorred  by  nature,  is  clearly  marked  in  a vast  number 
of  protective  contrivances,  representing  cases  of  bio- 
economic  reaction. 

Thus,  according  to  Kerner : ‘ The  foliage  of  the 

DeadlyNightshade  is  a poison  to  the  largergrazing  animals, 
and  by  them  is  left  undisturbed  ; but  the  leaves  of  this 
plant  are  not  only  noil-poisonous  to  a small  beetle  ( Haltica 
Atropae ) but  form  this  animal’s  most  important  food.  The 
larvas  of  this  beetle  often  eat  numerous  holes  in  the  leaves, 
which,  however,  by  no  means  prevent  the  development 
of  the  Deadly  Nightshade.  Accordingly  the  leaves  are 


BIOLOGICAL  ECONOMY 


55 


protected  by  the  alkaloid  contained  in  them  only  against 
wholesale  extermination  ; limited  portions  of  them  can 
be  surrendered  and  sacrificed  with  impunity.’ 

This  principle  of  mutual  service  is  in  my  view  an 
essential  factor  in  the  economy  of  nature,  and  it  is  in  any 
case  very  widely  spread.  The  plant,  in  accordance  with 
its  more  limited  status,  we  may  also  say,  pays  in  kind, 
while  the  more  highly  specialised  animal  pays  in  services. 
They  all  receive  by  virtue  of  what  they  have  earned,  and 
thus  the  words  of  Euripides  are  profoundly  true  that 
‘ Silver  and  gold  are  not  the  only  coin  ; virtue  too  passes 
current  all  over  the  world.’  All  circulating  media, 
according  to  Political  Economy,  are  the  result  of  a 
long  evolutionary  process,  and  the  most  important 
requisite  of  currency  is  stability  of  value.  It  must  have 
a redemptive  basis,  in  that  its  value  must  consist  in 
stored-up  labour. 

On  all  these  points,  the  facts  connected  with  the 
great  division  of  plant  and  animal  labour  amply  justify  the 
proposition  that  we  are  dealing  with  a genuine  economic 
relation.  We  must  remember  that  when  Darwin  believed 
it  to  be  one  of  the  greatest  oversights  in  his  work  not  to 
have  sufficiently  considered  the  existence  of  structures 
apparently  neither  beneficial  nor  injurious,  and  expressed 
the  view  that  one  day  we  may,  however,  know  more  about 
the  significance  of  structure,  a new  world  of  light  seemed 
to  be  opening  when  he  was  able  to  show,  in  one  particular 
at  least,  an  enormous  extension  of  the  region  of  usefulness. 


56 


EVOLUTION  BY  CO-OPERATION 


When  he  was  able  to  show  that  plants  gained  both  in 
vigour  and  in  ultimate  fertility  by  being  crossed,  and 
that  this  crossing  was  effected  under  mutual  relations 
by  insects ; that  just  as  flowers  have  been  adapted  to 
secure  cross-fertilisation,  fruits  have  been  developed  to 
assist  in  the  dispersal  of  seeds ; that  their  forms,  sizes, 
juices,  and  colours  can  be  shown  to  be  specially  adapted 
to  secure  such  dispersal  by  the  agency  of  birds 
and  mammals,  which  stand  in  need  of  these  products, 
almost  every  detail  was  found  to  have  a purpose 
and  use. 

I submit  that  it  is  a further  extension  of  the  principle 
of  usefulness  along  bio-economic  lines  which  is  needed  to 
complete  the  work  of  Darwin. 

In  the  case  of  insect  fertilisation  we  have  systematic 
activities,  services  and  exchange  of  services  with  stable 
values,  and  the  consequent  gain  testifies  to  the  healthful- 
ness of  this  round  of  activities. 

‘ It  is  now  believed  by  some  botanists,’  says  Dr. 
Wallace,  ‘ that  many  inconspicuous  and  imperfect  flowers, 
including  those  that  are  wind-fertilised,  such  as  plantains, 
nettles,  sedges  and  grasses,  do  not  represent  primitive 
or  undeveloped  forms,  but  are  degradations  from  more 
perfect  flowers  which  were  once  adapted  to  insect  fertilisa- 
tion. In  almost  every  order  we  find  some  plants  which 
have  become  thus  reduced  or  degraded  for  wind-  or  self- 
fertilisation.’ The  fact  that  we  find  the  principle  of 
bio-economic  utility  frequently  deviated  from  must 


BIOLOGICAL  ECONOMY 


57 


not  deceive  us  as  to  its  fundamental  importance  in  pro- 
gressive evolution. 

How  different,  too,  where  the  bees  obtain  nectar  in  a 
felonious  manner,  without  give  and  take,  by  biting  holes 
through  the  corolla  ! Fewer  plants  will  now  be  reared ; 
the  bees  in  turn  will  suffer  and  decrease  in  number,  to 
the  detriment  of  the  common  organic  interests.  There  is 
not  enough  currency  to  go  round,  and  in  consequence  the 
community  finds  itself  crippled  in  many  of  its  activities. 
Analogous  to  the  results  of  rapacity  and  depredation 
in  human  societies,  insecurity  now  prevails,  production 
goes  on  under  disadvantages  and  exchange  is  handi- 
capped. How  unjustified  appears  the  Malthusian 
generalisation  in  the  light  of  these  facts  ! How 
shallow  the  selective  philosophy  declaring  that,  the 
doctrine  of  Malthus  being  correct,  a fortiori  it  must 
apply  to  Nature  where  there  can  be  no  artificial  increase 
of  food  and  no  prudential  restraint  from  marriage. 
Messrs.  Thomson  and  Geddes  repeat  this  fallacy,  although, 
strangely,  it  is  they  who  proffer  at  the  same  time  the 
admirable  advice  to  the  true  Darwinian  no  longer  to  swear 
by  the  word  of  the  master,  but  to  go  forth  anew  into  the 
field  with  a social  philosophy  advanced  beyond  that  of 
Darwin’s  teacher  Malthus. 

In  Dr.  Wallace’s  appreciation  of  the  biological  environ- 
ment ‘ it  is  usually  the  amount  of  destruction  which  an 
animal  or  plant  is  exposed  to,  not  its  rapid  multiplication, 
that  determines  its  numbers  in  any  country.’  ‘ The 


58 


EVOLUTION  BY  CO-OPERATION 


abundance  of  a species  bears  little  or  no  relation  to  its 
seed-producing  power.’  The  latter  statement  is  true,  but 
according  to  my  interpretation  it  is  bio-economic  useful- 
ness which  primarily  determines  abundance  of  a species, 
and  absence  of  such  usefulness  which  determines  its 
destruction.  That  plants  do  qualify  for  abundance 
through  economic  usefulness  is  pointed  out  by  no  one 
more  beautifully  than  by  Dr.  Wallace  himself,  who  thus 
unwittingly  contradicts  his  own  destruction  theory.  He 
mentions  the  case  of  Lantana  mixta,  and  says  : ‘ The 
fruit  of  this  plant  is  so  acceptable  to  frugivorous  birds  of 
all  kinds  that,  through  their  instrumentality,  it  is  spreading 
rapidly,  to  the  complete  exclusion  of  the  indigenous 
vegetation  where  it  becomes  established.’  This  I claim 
as  a good  illustration  of  the  value  of  biological  co-opera- 
tion. It  instances  at  the  same  time  how  the  pressure  of 
conditions  against  the  reproductive  power  of  a species 
is  nowhere  fixed  and  final,  but  depends  on  behaviour,  and 
that  animals,  just  like  men,  are  capable  of  giving  ample 
and  legitimate  scope  to  the  reproductive  power  of  plants, 
which  supply  them  thus  with  legitimate  food.1 

Can  we,  in  the  light  of  these  considerations,  be 
surprised  that  the  flowering  plant  eventually  became 
prominent  and  overspread  almost  the  whole  world, 
whereas  other  types  of  inferior  bio-economic  value 

1 Even  the  wide  distribution  of  fresh-water  plants,  according  to 
Darwin,  depends  in  main  part  on  the  wide  dispersal  of  their  seeds  by 
animals,  more  especially  by  fresh-water  birds.  ‘ Even  fresh-water  fish 
eat  some  kinds  of  seeds,  though  they  reject  many  other  kinds  after 
having  swallowed  them.’ 


BIOLOGICAL  ECONOMY 


59 


dwindled  in  numbers  and  became  extinct  ? At  present, 
it  is  said,  we  can  only  speculate  as  to  the  causes  which 
have  contributed  to  the  changes  in  the  fortunes  of  a 
family,  and  Darwin  refers  to  the  many  complex  contin- 
gencies on  which  the  existence  of  each  species  depends. 
The  proposition  that  these  contingencies  are  mainly 
economic  cannot  be  lightly  disregarded.  As  soon  as  the 
co-operative  radius  diminishes,  so  does  the  whole  circum- 
ference of  life.  It  has  been  pointed  out  that  ‘ if  bears 
instead  of  men  had  been  shipped  from  Europe  to  North 
America,  there  would  now  be  no  more  bears  than 
in  the  time  of  Columbus,  and  possibly  fewer,  for  bear 
food  would  not  have  been  increased  nor  the  conditions 
of  bear  life  extended  by  the  bear  immigration,  but 
probably  the  reverse.  But  within  the  limits  of  the  United 
States  alone  there  are  forty-five  [now,  of  course,  more] 
millions  of  men  where  then  there  were  only  a few  hundred 
thousand,  and  yet  there  is  now  within  that  territory  much 
more  food  per  capita  for  the  forty-five  millions  than 
there  was  then  for  the  few  hundred  thousand.  It  is 
not  the  increase  of  food  that  has  caused  this  increase  of 
men,  but  the  increase  of  men  that  has  brought  the  increase 
of  food.’ 1 Thus  again  we  see  that  whether  increase 
of  population  tends  to  cause  want  or  not  depends  on 
behaviour. 

1 Darwin  hinted  that  a carnivorous  quadruped  may  succeed  in 
increasing  by  ‘ becoming  less  carnivorous.’  That  he  did  not,  however, 
sufficiently  appreciate  the  importance  of  nutritional  factors  is  evident 
from  his  remark  that 1 we  are  ignorant  with  respect  to  the  conditions 
which  determine  the  numbers  and  range  of  each  species.’ 


60 


EVOLUTION  BY  CO-OPERATION 


Such,  then,  are  the  large  facts,  and  minor  cases  of 
specialisation,  however  contradictory  they  may  at  first 
glance  appear,  must  be  read  in  their  light.  There  are 
other  large  facts  of  Nature  which  have  startling  parallels 
in  Political  Economy.  Economists,  referring  to  the  ‘ pro- 
ductive faculties  ’ and  ‘ means  ’ of  a nation,  mean  the 
capacity  and  resources  for  producing  things  that  have  an 
exchangeable  value.  They  generally  agree  in  the  definition 
of  ‘ value  ’ as  being  ‘ determined  by  the  amount  of  market- 
able things  for  which  an  article  can  be  exchanged.’  One 
of  their  doctiines,  from  which  consequences  of  some  weight 
are  deduced,  asserts  that  ‘ labour  is  the  only  source  of 
wealth.’  The  notion  of  some  ancient  nations,  that  plunder 
was  the  great  source  of  national  wealth,  is  now  considered 
as  exploded.  The  parallel  universal  facts  of  Nature  as 
stated  by  Sir  E.  Eay  Lankester  are  that : 

(a)  Any  new  set  of  conditions  occurring  to  an  animal, 
which  render  its  food  and  safety  very  easily  attained, 
seem  to  lead  as  a rule  to  degeneration  ; 

( b ) That  the  same  fate  awaits  the  flowering  plant 
which,  abandoning  the  great  task  of  the  green  plants  by 
feeding  on  the  material  manufactured  by  other  plants, 
becomes  devoid  of  chlorophyll. 

Biology  is  at  present  debarred  from  applying  the 
method  of  Political  Economy  to  these  phenomena  because 
of  its  belief  in  the  efficiency  of  Natural  Selection.  It  is 
therefore  constrained  to  speak  of  degeneration  as  ‘ simpli- 
fication,’ which  has  become  1 useful  ’ and  agreeable  to  the 


BIOLOGICAL  ECONOMY 


61 


organism.  With  this  I cannot  agree,  for  degeneration 
attended  by  a loss  of  the  capacity  and  resources  for 
producing  things  that  have  an  exchangeable  value, 
however  agreeable  the  allurements  of  sluggishness  may 
appear  to  an  organism,  is  a step  in  the  direction  of  physio- 
logical and  biological  bankruptcy,  and  not  of  genuine 
simplification.  Cope’s  definition  at  least  demands  that  the 
sum  of  the  subtractions  must  be  greater  than  the  sum 
of  the  additions.  You  can  simplify  a life  by  stripping  it 
of  a number  of  wasteful  or  non-essential  activities,  but 
never  by  lowering  its  economic  value  and  its  whole  status. 
You  can  reduce  a crystal  to  the  amorphous  state,  but 
this  is  not  simplifying  the  crystal.  It  has  been  said  that 
the  best  philosopher  is  he  who  can  think  most  simply  ; but 
surely  this  is  the  man  least  depending  on  others  for  his 
thinking,  whilst  the  condition  of  the  simplified  degenerate 
in  nature  is  that  of  one-sided  dependence  on  the  work  of 
others. 

Short  cuts  to  obtain  ‘ imports  ’ are  not  calculated  to 
produce  abiding  gains.  This  is  borne  out  by  human  and 
by  natural  history  alike.  A nation  that  ceases  to  manu- 
facture cannot  escape  impoverishment.  The  richest 
countries  are  not  those  where  Nature  is  most  prolific, 
but  those  where  labour  is  most  efficient. 

I will  admit  ‘ usefulness  ’ as  a criterion  as  soon  as  it 
may  be  referred  to  a sufficiently  wide  and  reliable  standard. 
Without  an  implied  standard  of  this  kind  the  word 
‘ useful  ’ becomes  useless,  indeed  worse  than  useless. 


62 


EVOLUTION  BY  CO-OPEBATION 


I am  ready  to  admit  ‘ usefulness  ’ and  ‘ simplification  ’ in 
the  case  of  the  reduction  of  one  kind  of  sexual  apparatus, 
for  instance,  leading  as  it  does  to  unisexuality  and  result- 
ing as  it  does  in  a better  division  of  labour,  in  wholesome 
diversification,  production  of  higher  values  and  of  greater 
excellence  generally.  Here  we  have  instances  of  pro- 
gressive reduction  and  progressive  atrophy  which  a proper 
diagnosis  must  distinguish  from  rank  retrogression,  and  to 
which,  I maintain,  the  term  degeneration  should  not  be 
applied. 

Moreover,  I firmly  believe  the  supposed  usefulness 
of  degeneration  to  the  organism  is  fictitious  ; for  exist- 
ence and  independence  are  rendered  more  and  more 
precarious,  and  the  seeming  advantage  in  one  direction  is 
purchased  by  too  high  a price  in  general  capacity.  How- 
ever useful  a so-called  high  specialisation  attending 
degeneration  may  seem  to  be  to  the  animal  possessing  it, 
it  is  recognised  to  be  very  often  one  cause  of  its  decline 
and  death. 

From  the  above  statements  of  Sir  E.  Ray  Lankester, 
we  may  glean  that  food  per  se  is  not  enough  to  produce 
abiding  gains  ; a superadded  productive  condition  of 
the  organism  is  an  essential  for  such  a consummation. 
Moreover  we  see  that  organisms,  as  they  cannot  with 
impunity  to  themselves  and  without  detriment  to  the 
balance  of  life  afford  to  shirk  certain  economic  duties, 
cannot  with  impunity  habitually  and  indolently  appro- 
priate the  food  material  manufactured  by  close  relatives. 

I have  expressed  this  latter  conclusion  in  analogous 


BIOLOGICAL  ECONOMY 


68 


terms  to  Darwin’s  aphorism  regarding  in-breeding 
thus : 

‘ Nature  abhors  perpetual  in-feeding,’ 

and  I consider  this  conclusion  to  express  a most 
profound  evolutionary  law,  whilst  at  the  same  time 
providing  the  key  to  the  study  of  the  biological  origin 
of  disease.  I hold  that  in-feeding  habits  render  an 
organism  progressively  liable  to  the  influence  of  bad 
elements  in  the  environment. 

A self-supporting  organism  requires  a fairly  all-round 
sense  of  proportions,  a certain  autonomy,  in  order  to 
retain  its  status  in  the  world  of  life.  This  autonomy  is  its 
true  strength,  affording  far  better  protection  than  any 
conceivable  weapons  could  do.  If  the  important  sub- 
stances which  the  plant,  as  the  result  of  a co-operative 
evolutionary  process,  is  capable  of  offering  in  a wonderful 
degree  of  efficiency  and  efficacy,  cease  to  appeal  to  an 
animal,  the  latter  is  gradually  divorcing  itself  from  its  true 
complement ; its  senses,  organs  and  structure  will 
gradually  change,  and  it  will  thus  be  led  in  different 
directions,  fatal  to  its  own  self-supporting  capacities 
and  fatal  to  the  preservation  of  the  economic  balance 
of  life. 

I have  endeavoured  to  show  that  the  wider  significance 
of  organic  interdependence  consists  in  the  fact  that  every 
self-supporting  organism,  by  accumulating  and  exchanging 
adequate  surpluses,  is  enabled  to  command  valuable  sup- 
ports for  sustenance  and  enhancement  of  life  from  the 
biological  community.  The  organism  that  relinquishes 


64 


EVOLUTION  BY  CO-OPERATION 


its  bio -economic  tasks,  however,  loses  its  supports.  Lack 
of  self-supporting  activity  alone,  as  we  may  deduce  from 
Sir  E.  Ray  Lankester’s  statements,  results  in  visible  loss 
of  vital  parts.  The  statements  indeed  may  be  read  to 
hint  at  the  lack  of  the  bio-economic  factor,  the  absence 
of  redemptive  work,  rather  than  absence  of  physiological 
factors,  although,  of  course,  it  is  the  simultaneous  loss  of 
both  that  causes  degeneration.  If  particular  parts  of  an 
organism  cease  to  do  work,  the  physiological  result  is  that 
they  cease  to  be  fed.  Thus  Goebel,  the  German  botanist, 
states : ‘ The  external  form  of  the  plant  is  conditioned 
by  the  vital  activity  of  the  plant  and  by  the  food  supply 
to  each  part  of  it,’  and  he  holds  besides  that  the  quality 
of  the  food  supply  explains  the  nature  of  the  parts  formed. 

Physiology  shows  that  a particular  habit  of  feeding 
produces  particular  enzymes,  a particular  composition  of 
body  fluids,  particular  glands,  particular  vascular,  bone 
and  nerve  developments,  a particular  soil  for  metabolic 
response  and  for  organic  memory  and  particular  cor- 
relations. Abnormal  development  of  any  tissue  or  organ 
must  alter  the  state  of  the  body  fluids  just  as  the  abnormal 
nutrition  of  any  one  organ  must  affect  the  others.  In  the 
cell  already  a large  number  of  enzymes  occur  and  function 
according  to  division  of  labour  ; their  manifold  actions 
being  exactly  regulated  so  as  not  to  disturb  but  to  benefit 
each  other.  That  the  inheritance  of  chemical  properties 
which  are  of  great  importance  for  the  production  of  form 
actually  takes  place  is  now  as  well  known  as  that  of 


BIOLOGICAL  ECONOMY 


65 


morphological  properties.  Heredity  is  to  a large  extent  a 
physiological  problem.  It  only  remains  to  determine  how 
far  the  chemical  mechanism  is  in  the  long  run  affected  by 
feeding  habits  and  to  what  extent  the  latter  are  cumula- 
tively effective.  What  I have  said  already  on  this  matter 
points  to  a fundamental  and  combined  physiological  and 
biological  necessity  of  discrimination  as  regards  feeding. 

I have  indicated  some  of  the  organic  currency  in  which 
mutual  services  are  normally  commuted,  and  it  follows 
that  to  prevent  any  part  of  this  currency  from  becoming 
debased  is  a matter  of  vital  moment  to  plant  and  animal 
alike.  Debasement  of  currency  must  set  in  wherever  an 
important  link  in  the  metabolic  chain  of  nature  (such  as 
the  elaboration  of  food  material)  is  suppressed,  because 
such  a mode,  were  it  allowed  to  spread,  would  spell 
organic  impoverishment ; and  likewise  on  physiological 
grounds,  because  an  organism  that  has  recourse  to  in- 
feeding habits  replaces  the  particular,  stable,  regulated, 
corrective  and  matured  material  by  the  indiscriminate, 
unstable,  unregulated  and  immature  material,  which  acts 
as  a slow  poison.  A promiscuous  and  waste-producing 
physiological  activity  must  favour  an  abnormal  morpho- 
logy, monstrosity,  or  unstable  developments  generally. 

With  every  intensification  of  in-feeding  propensities 
valuable  correlations  are  surrendered,  and  inferior 
relations  are  set  up.  New  practices  will  set  in,1  new 
affinities  will  be  set  up,  much  in  the  same  way  as 

1 ‘ Habits  easily  become  associated  with  other  habits/  says  Darwin. 


F 


66 


EVOLUTION  BY  CO-OPERATION 


is  the  case  with  degradation  in  human  society.  I submit 
that  the  gradual  modification  of  the  true  whale  till 
it  all  but  lost  its  mammalian  character,  and  that  of 
flightless  and  rather  bulky  birds,  proceeded  on  such  lines. 
Sir  E.  Ray  Lankester  states  that  it  is  very  difficult  to 
say  why  the  Great  Auk  died  out,  for  it  had  not  been 
hunted  down.  He  does  not  so  much  as  hint  at  a bio- 
economic  and  combined  pathological  cause.  The  Dodo 
was  too  fat  for  its  little  wings  to  lift  it  from  the  ground. 
Obesity  is,  however,  now  recognised  as  a disease.  If  the 
descent  of  the  inclined  plane  of  in-feeding  is  persisted  in, 
bad  habits  degenerate  into  rank  criminality.  The  usual 
gradation  is  : depredation,  insectivorism,  pure  camivor- 
ism  or  parasitism,  as  the  case  may  be.  In  all  cases  the 
in-feeders  have  cross-feeding  relatives  or  are  descended 
from  such.  Thus  the  Australian  Kea,  according  to  G. 
R.  Marriner,  ‘ like  other  parrots,  is  normally  a vegetarian. 
But  somehow  it  has  also  become  strongly  insectivorous.’ 
When  circumstances  further  changed  in  its  disfavour, 

‘ with  man  came  sheep,  and  with  sheep  the  great  tempta- 
tion, and  soon  also  the  fall  that  has  for  ever  blackened 
the  character  of  these  interesting  mountain  parrots  ’ ; 
from  being  a harmless  parrot  (and,  I would  add, 
from  being  a seed  disperser)  it  has  become  a bird  of 
prey  of  no  mean  order.  The  whole  character  has  changed 
for  the  worse.  It  has  had  to  acquire  a new  art : the 
art  of  sheep-killing.  Marriner  points  out  : ‘ The  change 
seems  more  or  less  natural,  for  there  seems  to  be  very 


BIOLOGICAL  ECONOMY 


67 


little  difference  between  eating  a large  plump  grub  and  a 
piece  of  fat.’  We  have  here  an  instance  of  how  insecti- 
vorism  may  merge  into  pure  carnivorism. 

Proper  ‘ cross-feeding,’  on  the  other  hand,  I contend, 
is  the  great  principle  of  progress.  It  constitutes  a vital 
check  on  excessive  katabolism,  and  it  is  an  essential 
to  fitness,  and  explains  the  origin  of  fitness,  which  the 
mere  phrase  ‘ survival  of  the  fittest  ’ never  does.  It  is 
calculated  to  ensure  due  exercise  of  powers,  due  physiologi- 
cal labour,  due  physiological  and  economic  independence, 
due  care  of  offspring,  due  fertilisation  and  due  possibilities 
of  response.  It  is  the  sine  qud  non  of  ‘ aristocratic  ’ 
adaptations,  because  it  is  a kind  of  amphimixis,  ensuring 
proper  discrimination  in  and  maturation  of  the  very 
important  material  that  is  everywhere  to  sustain  the 
highest  types  without  loss  of  vital  correlations. 

Reproduction,  we  have  seen,  implies  the  timely  pro- 
jection from  those  ready  for  such  distintegration  of  vital 
physiological  elements — now  somewhat  enriched  and  now 
somewhat  debased,  as  the  case  may  be,  capable  of  forming 
a rejuvenated  equilibrium.  But  its  significance  also 
consists  in  the  fact  that  a more  or  less  adequately  cor- 
rected, matured  and  ‘ evolved  ’ nutritive  material  is 
during  the  process  restored  to  the  species,  and,  hence,  to 
the  biological  community  at  large. 

An  example  from  the  embryonic  stage  of  life,  typifying 
the  desirability  of  adequately  matured  and  evolved  food 
material,  we  have,  I submit,  in  the  case  of  the  endosperm 


68 


EVOLUTION  BY  CO-OPERATION 


of  Indian  corn,  which  has  been  shown  to  arise  by  a pro- 
cess very  similar  to  that  which  gives  rise  to  the  embryo 
itself.  The  hereditary  qualities,  moreover,  of  endosperm 
and  associated  embryo  are  said  to  be  exactly  the  same  ; 
hence  such  food  material  partakes  of  the  vital  character- 
istics of  germ-cells.  We  must  remember,  as  Drummond 
puts  it,  that  nearly  all  the  foods  of  the  world  are  love- 
foods — the  date,  the  raisin,  the  banana  and  the  bread- 
fruit, the  locust  and  the  honey,  the  eggs,  the  grains,  the 
seeds,  the  cereals  and  the  legumes.’  ‘ The  first  and 
universal  food  of  the  world  is  milk,  a product  of 
reproduction.’ 

Quantitatively  speaking,  the  value  of  the  fertilisation 
process  is  such  that  after  mytosis  the  germ-cell  contains 
of  nuclear  substance  only  that,  but  all  that,  which  is  neces- 
sary to  produce  a new  typical  aggregation  of  hereditary 
substances.  Surfeit  and  waste  material  are  got  lid  of. 
Qualitative,  quantitative,  and  bio-economic  considerations 
combined,  therefore,  go  to  show  that  a co-operative  mode 
of  nutrition,  such  as  I submit  cross-feeding  to  be,  has 
superior  advantages. 

As  regards  animal  nutrition  we  must  remember  that 
plant  food  offers  proteins  and  carbo-hydrates  far  superior, 
as  regards  purity,  stability  and  reliability,  to  those  derived 
from  flesh  food.  In  currency  aspects  cross-feeding, 
therefore,  is  far  superior  to  in-feeding.  Hatschek  asserts 
that  ‘ all  nutrition  is  reproduction,’  but  I go  further  by 
pointing  out  the  underlying  amphimixis.  Nutrition 


BIOLOGICAL  ECONOMY 


69 


entails  a kind  of  fertilisation,  determined  as  to  its  results — 
analogous  to  the  case  of  sex — by  the  preceding  processes 
of  maturation  and  by  the  bio-economic  and  physiological 
adequacy  of  the  uniting  material.  The  anabolic  plant 
elaborates  and  matures  the  food  material,  which  is  thus 
comparable  to  the  unfertilised  ovum ; the  relatively 
katabolic  animal  elaborates — and  keeps  in  fair  constancy 
of  composition  and  of  maturation — the  blood,  which 
presently  is  to  unite  to  itself  the  matured  food  elements 
much  in  a manner  analogous  to  that  in  which  the  sperm 
unites  with  the  ovum  in  fertilisation.  Blood  and 
‘ love  ’-foods  may  be  viewed  as  the  outcome  of  a joint 
and  co-operative  physiological  evolution  of  animal  and 
plant,  during  which  process  they  have  become  endowed 
with  their  singular  value  and  significance.  The  process 
of  digestion,  as  we  know,  consists  of  reduction  processes, 
and  the  food  first  of  all  has  to  be  reduced  to  the  soluble 
state  before  union  can  take  place.  The  union  of  properly 
isomerised,  matured  and  ‘ evolved,’  anabolic  and  kata- 
bolic elements  is  conducive  to  permanent  syntheses  and 
stable  equilibria.  ‘ Love  ’-foods  are  superior  to  other 
foods  analogously  as  germ-cells  are  superior  to  somatic 
cells,  viz.  in  containing  the  elements  of  continuity  and 
of  growth.  Bio-chemical  research  is  now  isolating  some 
of  the  vital  substances  contained  in  grains  or  their  coats, 
which  substances  are  generally  missing  in  artificial  food 
and  destroyed  by  cooking.  These  results  show  that 
it  is  the  adequacy — rather  than  the  quantity  or  crude 


70 


EVOLUTION  BY  CO-OPERATION 


combination — of  component  forces  which  is  required  in 
amphimixis  (nutritional  and  sexual),  and,  moreover,  that 
our  reliance  for  the  obtaining  of  a ‘ super-adequacy  of 
force  ’ from  nutrition  must  be  placed  upon  the  ‘ long- 
enduring  gestation  of  nature,’  which  alone  can  provide 
complemental  material  endowed  with  the  subtle  com- 
pounds and  in  the  most  favourable  molecular  structure 
that  are  essential  to  digestion.  If,  in  course  of  time, 
these  mutually  complemental  anabolic  and  katabolic 
elements  become  increasingly  adapted  for  each  other, 
the  energies  required  for  these  maturation  processes 
are  capable  of  being  economised,  with  the  result  that 
surpluses  are  created  which  are  available  for  physiological 
or  mental  and  social  improvement.  Permanence  and 
stability  of  physiological  conditions  are  indispensable  to 
the  building  up  of  a proper  soil  for  higher  development, 
and  we  can  see  that  they  primarily  depend  upon  cross- 
feeding. The  flesh  and  juices  of  other  animals  at  best 
must  be  considered  as  second-hand  food.  They  import 
into  a system,  it  is  true,  some  of  the  residual  energies 
originally  derived  from  a plant,  but  together  with  certain 
unreliable,  and  often  dangerous  katabolic  elements  which 
disturb  the  primordial  beneficence  of  the  previous  cross- 
feeding  arrangements  and  render  the  union  unstable 
and  predominatingly  katabolic.  The  result  is  patholo- 
gical over-stimulation  and  consequent  disproportion  of 
parts,  a removal  of  the  previous  wholesome  bio-economic 
embargo  on  increase  of  size  or  of  numbers.  The  demands 


BIOLOGICAL  ECONOMY  71 

for  purity  and  stability  of  values  on  an  organic  currency 
are  never  satisfied  if  depredation  is  relied  upon  for  a 
supply  of  organic  coinage.  The  animals  preyed  upon, 
moreover,  very  generally  represent  the  offal  of  life — in 
wild  nature  generally  those  sick  and  weak,  and  in 
civilisation  those  rendered  somewhat  morbid  by 
domestication. 

Hosts  are  always  injured  and  modified  by  parasitic 
nurture.  They  never  yield  a reliable,  pure,  and  stable 
coinage  The  ingestion  of  host  food  produces  a manifest 
biological  reaction  in  the  shape  of  an  intestinal  pathogenic 
flora.  There  is  an  economic  law  of  currency  according 
to  which  bad  money  gradually  drives  out  good  money. 
Physiological  and  biological  economy  we  thus  find  to 
provide  the  exact  analogue  to  this  (Gresham’s)  law. 
In  the  place  of  a nobler  coinage,  an  in-feeding  species  is 
content  with  baser  coinage,  and  whilst  the  latter  is  not 
prejudicial  to  numbers  and  bulk,  good  coinage  becomes 
increasingly  rare.  The  predominance  of  the  baser  kind 
of  physiological  values  frequently  means  additional 
stimulation  of  a disaggregating  kind.  The  cell  which  has 
lost  its  strict  regularisation  of  enzymes  suffers  disease 
in  a way  analogous  to  that  in  which  the  presence  of 
impurities  or  heterogeneous  contact  is  responsible  for 
atomic  dissociation  of  the  mineral  and  for  the  illness  of 
metals.1  The  previous  arrangement  of  restraint  on  the 

1 In  his  work,  La  Biologie  Synthetique,  Prof.  Stephane  Leduc  states 
that  ‘ the  faculties  of  nutrition,  absorption,  elaboration  or  chemical 


72 


EVOLUTION  BY  CO-OPERATION 


part  of  enzymes  gives  way  to  a promiscuous  stimulation 
derived  largely  from  waste  products,  toxins,  excitants 
and  stimulants  introduced  by  indiscriminate  feeding. 
Rickets,  for  instance,  which  is  an  undue  softness 
of  bone  in  young  animals,  induced  by  unsuitable 
food,  has  an  exceedingly  wide  zoological  distribution, 
and  some  believe  that  the  scalariform  shells  of  some 
molluscs  may  be  regarded  as  arising  from  the  same 
cause  as  rickets  in  vertebrates.  The  more  precise  and 
universal  cause  of  this  disease  is  believed  to  be  the 
deficiency  of  lime  salts  with  the  food.  My  interpretation 
is  that  inappropriate  food  has  gradually  driven  out 
appropriate  food,  analogous  to  the  action  of  bad  on  good 
currency.  A bio-chemical  antagonism  between  the 
soluble  alkalies  and  the  alkaline  earths,  calcium  and 
magnesium,  is  known  to  exist  in  animal  physiology.  ‘ If 
the  bicarbonates,  or  indeed  any  salt  of  sodium  or  potas- 
sium such  as  the  citrate,  tartrate,  or  acetate  of  sodium  or 
potassium,  be  administered  to  a human  being  in  fair 
quantity  for  any  brief  but  appreciable  period,  the  following 


metamorphosis,  assimilation,  elimination,  growth,  development,  func- 
tional differentiation,  organisation,  inanition  and  disease  are  shown 
by  osmotic  growths  exactly  as  by  living  organisms.’ 

These  views,  if  correct,  do  not  detract  from  my  bio-economic  theory. 
A synthetic  theory  of  Bio-Economics,  were  it  only  for  its  implications 
regarding  the  significance  of  nutrition,  indeed  has  to  embrace  the 
inorganic  world,  just  as  Physiology  has  to  include  the  study  of  the 
chemical  mechanism  of  life.  Moreover,  Prof.  Leduc’s  views  testify  to 
the  universality  of  laws  of  definite  proportions  which  obtain,  in  my 
opinion,  in  organic  as  well  as  in  inorganic  morphogenesis. 


BIOLOGICAL  ECONOMY 


73 


extraordinary  phenomenon  is  manifest.  Large  quantities 
of  calcium  and  magnesium  salts  immediately  make  their 
appearance  in  the  urine,  thus  showing  that  sodium  or 
potassium  when  administered  to  an  animal  in  excess  at 
once  exhibits  so  strong  a contrast  in  the  economy  of 
that  animal  that  immediately  a large  output  of  calcium 
and  magnesium  occurs.’ 

Physiological  arrangements,  thus  give  way  under 
predominance  of  physical  forces,  i.e.  they  become 
pathological.  Such  is  the  process  of  evolution  of  what 
I call  the  ‘ rnisere  ’ of  in-feeding. 

In-feeding,  like  in-breeding,  thus  ultimately  produces 
forms  which  are  no  longer  competent  to  vary  sufficiently 
to  keep  pace  with  the  demands  of  the  time.  The  cross- 
feeding, slow- breeding,  and  social  types — the  aristocracy 
of  life — have  in  the  meantime  been  establishing  a higher 
economic  organisation,  which  proves  victorious  in  prac- 
tice. Kise  of  type  and  of  character  anywhere  on  the 
globe  is  calculated  to  spread  sympathetic,  constraining 
and,  incidentally,  eliminative  effects  in  many  direc- 
tions, favourably  affecting  the  whole  level  of  existence, 
just  as  the  elevating  effect  of  character  is  manifested 
through  the  medium  of  foreign  trade,  which  is  apparent 
in  a forcing  up  towards  a common  level  of  honesty  and 
efficiency  the  practices  of  government  and  business  life. 
If  in  the  Koran  it  is  laid  down  that  ‘ a ruler  who  appoints 
any  man  to  an  office,  when  there  is  in  his  dominions 
another  man  better  qualified  for  it,  sins  against  God  and 


74 


EVOLUTION  BY  CO-OPERATION 


against  the  State,’  this  is  not  only  a sentimental  encourage- 
ment, or  a vague  belief  in  the  ultimate  triumph  of  ex- 
cellence ; but  it  betrays  a shrewd  insight  into  the  law 
of  nature  and  a knowledge  of  the  penalties  inherent 
upon  the  neglect  of  quality.  We  may  likewise  assume 
that  the  progressive  organisms  have  perfected  then- 
resistance  to  disease  pari  passu  with  their  general 
improvement  of  organisation  and  of  adaptive  faculty, 
so  that  it  is  the  relatively  backward  types  that  offer  a 
congenial  soil  for  the  growth  of  pathogenic  organisms. 

It  is  said  that  the  so-called  highly  specialised  types 
must  become  extinct  because  they  fail  to  produce  varieties 
— the  chances  of  survival  of  a type  being  in  direct  ratio 
to  the  number  of  favourable  varieties  it  produces.  This 
is  a kind  of  mathematical  explanation  which  leaves  out 
of  account  the  profounder  explanation  of  economic  and, 
hence,  physiological  sterility.  Palaeontology  indeed  shows 
that  the  number  and  extent  of  the  variations  diminish 
as  fast  as  the  specialisation  increases.  ‘ When  a branch 
disappears  by  extinction,’  says  Deperet,  ‘ it  is,  so  to  speak, 
replaced  by  another  branch  having  an  evolution  until 
then  slower.’  Indeed  ‘ slow  transformation  ’ presents 
itself  ' as  the  most  normal  process  of  palaeontological 
evolution.’ 

These  statements  point  to  the  superiority  of  the 
relatively  slow  cross-feeding  and  cross-breeding  modes 
to  the  relatively  accelerated  and  unrestrained  in-feeding 
and  in-breeding  methods.  The  latter  modes  in  then- 


BIOLOGICAL  ECONOMY 


75 


palaeontological  significance  are  described  by  Deperet  as 
the  ‘ intermittent  tendency  shown  by  branches  of 
producing,  at  certain  moments  of  their  regular  evolution, 
numerous  variations  round  about  the  parental  type.’  He 
continues  : ‘ These  periods  of  crisis,  or,  if  you  will,  of 
aberration,  in  the  morphology  of  certain  types  generally 
alternate  with  calm  periods  of  a slighter  variation,  during 
which  the  branch  pursues  with  deliberation  and  regularity 
the  normal  course  of  its  development.’  Of  course  my 
explanation  of  these  aberrations  is  not  that  of  Professor 
Deperet. 

The  limitation  produced  by  in-feeding  is  sometimes 
unwittingly  referred  to  as  the  law  of  irreversibility,  by 
which  is  meant  that  a branch,  once  started  on  the  lines 
of  a given  specialisation,  can  in  no  case  travel  backwards 
on  the  track  traversed.  How,  in  extreme  cases,  this 
must  lead  to  an  absolute  cul-de-sac  we  shall  presently 
see  in  the  case  of  parasitism.  In  the  meantime  it  is 
interesting  to  find  Professor  Deperet  uttering  the  hope 
of  many  palaeontologists  of  finding  an  unknown  force  of 
a more  internal  order  which  limits  the  variations  of  the 
groups.  Such  a force,  I believe,  will  be  found  in  nutrition. 

The  ‘misere’  of  in-feeding,  however,  is  particularly 
marked  in  parasitism.  The  very  word  is  taken  from 
human  life  ; a parasite  being  an  idler,  living  on  the  values 
manufactured  by  another  without  any  return  of  service, 
originally  a sponger  who  for  a good  dinner  was  ready  to 
submit  to  almost  any  humiliation.  Be  it  from  sheer 


76 


EVOLUTION  BY  CO-OPERATION 


idleness  or  through  the  temptation  of  circumstances,  from 
whatever  predispositions  there  be,  such  cases  gradually 
produce  a social  disease. 

Parasitism  in  nature  equally,  in  my  view,  constitutes 
a disease.  In  order  to  include  its  very  important  incuba- 
tory phase,  and  to  indicate  that  in  the  long  run  a course 
of  pathological  developments  can  be  seen  to  originate 
in  habit  which  is  wasteful  and  therefore  opposed  to  the 
common  biological  interest,  I have  introduced  the  term 
‘ parasitic  diathesis.’  An  occasional  lapse  into  parasitic 
errors  does  not  constitute  an  organism  a rank  parasite, 
any  more  than  a man  occasionally  transgressing  the  laws 
of  health  necessarily  becomes  a chronic  dyspeptic.  The 
diathesis  differs  in  intensity  in  different  cases,  and  it 
need  not  be  chronic,  although  it  frequently  perpetuates 
itself. 

At  the  recent  ‘ Kongress  fur  innere  Medizin  ’ at  Wies- 
baden, the  concept  ‘ diathesis  ’ was  defined  as  : ‘ Eine  in 
ihrem  Wesen  noch  unbekannte  Stoffweckselerkrankung  ’ 
(a  metabolic  abnormality  not  yet  thoroughly  understood). 
‘ Der  Hauptgedanke  war  der,  dass  der  Korper  nur 
in  seiner  Gesamtheit  erkranken  kann,’  i.e.  that  disease 
is  a constitutional  matter.  It  was  stated  that  ‘ zweck- 
massige  Ernahrung,  unter  die  eine  Eindammung  der 
Fleischnahrung  zu  rechnen  ist,’  constituted  the  best 
means  of  prevention.  Now,  in  accordance  with  my  thesis, 
the  consensus  of  medical  opinion  at  that  Congress  was 
to  the  effect  that  a reduction  of  an  existing  parasitic 


BIOLOGICAL  ECONOMY 


77 


diathesis  (although  of  a comparatively  mild  form)  would 
prevent  the  increase  of  a certain  type  of  disease. 

I have  already  pointed  out  that  the  predominance  of 
physical  forces  in  an  organic  system  is  marked  in  a very 
definite  way  in  gradual  loss  of  symmetry  and  of  whole- 
some diversification,  in  increase  of  size  on  the  lines  of 
accretion  rather  than  of  bio-economic  utility  and  of 
eugenics.  A species  so  afflicted  represents  a partly 
dissociated  synthesis.  The  condition  of  such  types 
sometimes  is  referred  to  as  that  of  ‘ over-specialisation,’ 
and  it  is  said  of  them  that  they  are  accustomed  to  live 
in  luxurious  indolence.  Such  were  the  giant  Ptero- 
dactyles  of  the  Cretaceous  period,  the  colossal  Dinosaurs 
of  the  Upper  Jurassic  and  Cretaceous  and  the  large 
mammals  following  them. 

It  was  duly  pointed  out  by  A.  S.  Woodward,  at  the 
British  Association  Meeting  at  Winnipeg,  that  ‘ it  is  not, 
of  course,  all  the  members  of  a race  that  increase  in 
size  ; some  remain  small  until  the  end,  and  they  generally 
survive  long  after  the  others  are  extinct.’  The  condition 
of  the  monstrous  type  is  that  of  sterility  and  of  premature 
old  age — a pathological  deterioration,  a kind  of  giant’s 
disease.  Elephants,  whales,  and  ostriches  are  thus  at  the 
present  day  supposed  to  be  approaching  their  final  stage 
of  existence. 

My  interpretation  of  the  palaeontological  law  that 
many  large  groups  of  animals  began  with  types  small  in 
size  is  that  in  the  majority  of  cases  such  growth,  just  as 


78 


EVOLUTION  BY  CO-OPERATION 


teratological  development,  is  on  the  lines  of  accretion  out- 
wardly marking  the  predominance  of  physical  over  bio- 
economic  forces.  Although  an  organism  may  have 
abandoned  the  task  of  production  and  have  thereby 
rendered  negative  many  important  components,  it  may 
still  be  possessed  of  positive  components  vital  enough  to 
impress  some  kind  of  specific  aspect  upon  the  otherwise 
disaggregating  species.  Some  characters  may  remain 
tolerably  constant,  being  dependent  on  some  remaining 
useful  organ.  Nevertheless  the  antithesis  between  physi- 
cal and  physiological  forces  is  strongly  marked  in  sexual 
dimorphism,  in  female  preponderance,  or  in  the  tendency 
to  monstrosity,  which  are  comparable  to  the  tendency  to 
amorphism  upon  the  break-up  of  crystallisation.  Anti- 
thetic developments  are  thus  highly  significant  in  diagnosis. 
They  indicate  that  there  is  a tendency  among  the  parts 
to  develop  disharmoniously  and  eventually  antagon- 
istically. That  the  resultant  of  the  synthesis  is  turning 
downward  is  thus  outwardly  marked  by  an  approach  to 
accretion  and  amorphism. 

I am  led  to  these  conclusions  by  personal  observations 
of  change  of  form  resulting  from  changes  in  nutrition, 
and  it  is  easily  seen  that  the  same  cause  and  effect  always 
have  pervaded  and  still  do  pervade  all  groups,  from  the 
lowest  to  the  highest.  The  small  titmouse  ( Parus  ater) 
has  a more  vegetarian  diet  than  the  great  titmouse,  which 
not  only  feeds  on  larger  insects,  but  is  said  sometimes  to 
kill  small  and  weak  birds.  The  smaller  falcons,  like  the 


BIOLOGICAL  ECONOMY 


79 


hobby,  live  largely  on  insects,  but  the  closer  in-feeding 
of  those  falcons  which  prey  upon  other  birds  is  indicated 
in  larger  size.  Again,  the  young  of  the  flat-fish  are  quite 
symmetrical,  indicating  that  at  one  time  the  intensity 
of  in-feeding  was  less  pronounced.  I interpret  this 
case  to  mean  that  with  increasing  metabolic  abnormality 
in  the  past  there  was  an  increasing  depth  of  the  body — 
the  usual  concomitant  of  in- feeding— causing  loss  of 
vertical  position  and  of  symmetry. 

To  cite  one  example  of  an  inverse  development : 
it  has  been  pointed  out  that  the  duck  Dendrocygna 
autumnalis,  when  compelled  by  circumstances  to  feed 
upon  seeds  and  grain,  instead  of  animal  life,  becomes  so 
relatively  light  and  active  that  ‘ it  can  alight  on  a stalk  of 
growing  corn  with  the  ease  of  a blackbird,  and  it  is  quite  at 
home  among  the  lofty  trees  where  it  makes  its  nest.’ 

As  soon  as  restraint  in  matters  of  feeding  is  removed, 
so  likewise  is  the  embargo  on  any  increase  of  size  or 
numbers.  This  is  also  seen  in  domestication,  which 
frequently  is  the  cause  of  an  induced  diathesis.  The 
consequent  increase  of  size  goes  pari  passu  with  the 
degradation  through  gradual  loss  of  vital  factors.  Pro- 
fessor Punnett  refers  to  the  idea  that  the  ‘ various  domestic 
forms  of  animals  and  plants  have  arisen  by  the  omission 
from  time  to  time  of  this  factor  or  of  that.  It  is  fre- 
quently a process  of  continuous  loss.  Everything  was 
there  in  the  beginning,  in  the  wild  or  independent  state, 
before  degradation  set  in.  Mutations  owe  their  origin 


80 


EVOLUTION  BY  CO-OPERATION 


to  a disturbance  in  the  processes  of  cell  division  through 
which  the  gametes  originate.  At  some  stage  or  other  the 
normal  equal  distribution  of  the  various  factors  is  upset, 
and  some  gametes  receive  a factor  less  than  others.’ 
What  leads  to  the  surmised  unequal  division  of  the 
gametes  ? Of  this,  says  Professor  Punnett,  ‘ we  know 
practically  nothing.’ 

It  is  significant,  in  my  opinion,  that  the  horse  shows 
remarkable  survivals  of  behaviour,  amongst  which  I 
would  assign  first  place  to  the  stability  of  feeding  habits. 
It  is  even  said  that  the  young  foals  do  not  gorge  them- 
selves with  milk  as  calves  do.  In  the  survival  of  legiti- 
mate economic  behaviour  alone  do  I see  the  explanation  of 
Cope’s  second  and  complemental  law,  which  is  that  of 
non-specialisation.  It  states  that  ‘ organic  types  which 
are  not  specialised  alone  are  capable  of  an  ulterior 
evolution.’ 

As  regards  parasitism,  the  view  that  it  is  a physiolo- 
gical habit  which  theoretically  may  be  assumed  by  any 
organism,  and  which  actually  has  been  assumed  by  mem- 
bers of  every  living  group,  seems  to  me  very  seriously  to 
underrate  its  significance  in  the  biological  world. 

By  that  theory  we  are  required  to  look  mainly  at  the 
more  or  less  accidental  factor  of  attachment  rather  than 
the  abuse  of  nutrition,  which  I consider  to  be  its  funda- 
mental nature  and  fraught  with  great  significance.  This 
view  is  perhaps  most  concisely  and  ably  stated  in  the 
article  ‘ Parasitism  ’ in  the  ‘ Encyclopaedia  Britannica  ’ 


BIOLOGICAL  ECONOMY 


81 


last  edition.  There  we  are  told  that  ‘ when  parasitism 
is  to  be  employed  as  a scientific  term,  it  must  connote 
something  more  than  mere  dependence  on  another  living 
organism  for  nutrition.’  This  is  quite  true,  though  in  a 
different  sense  from  that  here  implied,  viz.  it  is  true  in 
the  sense  only  that  it  must  connote  illegitimate  depend- 
ence. Dependence  in  itself  need  not  lead  to  physical 
attachment  any  more  than  to  degeneration  ; on  the  con- 
trary, mutual  dependence,  as  I have  shown,  is  the  con- 
dition of  progress ; and  even  attachment,  so  long  as  it 
entails  mutual  aid,  need  not  necessarily  produce  degenera- 
tion. The  writer  indeed  makes  the  concession  that 
‘ green  plants  build  up  their  food  from  the  inorganic 
elements  of  the  air  and  the  soil,  and  are  farthest  removed 
from  the  suspicion  of  dependence ; but  most,  if  not  all, 
thrive  only  by  the  aid  of  living  microbes  either  actually 
attached  to  their  roots  or  swimming  in  the  nutrient 
soil.’  Could  it  thus  be  seen  that  a ‘ host  ’ actually  thrives 
by  the  aid  of  a 4 guest  ’ and  that  direct  and  economic 
benefits  result  from  the  union,  surely  the  term  parasitism 
would  not  apply,  surely  such  a case  would  be  far  removed 
from  the  suspicion  even  of  parasitism,  so  much  so  indeed 
that,  as  in  the  case  of  the  green  plant,  it  represents  the 
very  opposite  pole  to  parasitism,  viz.  co-operation.  Even 
among  the  lowest  plants,  the  lichens — in  so  far  as  they  are 
a highly  developed  symbiotic  group — they  distinguish 
themselves  favourably  from  the  rest  of  their  class  by  con- 
taining a greater  number  of  specific  organic  compounds. 


82 


EVOLUTION  BY  CO-OPERATION 


Now  what  are  the  necessary  additional  conceptions  to 
make  parasitism  a scientific  term  according  to  this  view  ? 
* The  bodies  of  host  and  parasite  must  be,’  says  the 
article,  ‘ in  temporary  or  permanent  physical  contact 
other  than  the  mere  preying  of  the  latter  on  the  former, 
and  the  presence  of  the  parasite  must  not  be  beneficial, 
and  is  usually  detrimental  to  the  host.’ 

The  wording  of  the  latter  part,  that  ‘ the  presence  of 
the  parasite  must  not  be  beneficial  and  is  usually  detri- 
mental to  the  host,’  leaves  a very  mischievous  loophole, 
by  means  of  which  the  most  far-reaching  and  typical 
cases  of  mutual  aid,  as  that  of  the  flower  above  and  the 
case  of  the  young  mammal,  have  been  branded  as  parasit- 
ism on  the  sole  theory  of  attachment,  however  temporary. 
This  is  in  the  face  of  the  fact  that  the  mammalian  arrange- 
ment produces  organic  and  social  betterment,  and  that 
harmony  and  co-operative  principles  reign  in  the  repro- 
ductive life  of  mammalia,  all  of  which  is  contrary  to  the 
rule  in  parasitic  life. 

That  the  detrimental  effect  of  the  guest  on  the  host 
is,  however,  greatly  incidental  upon  the  preying  is  later 
conceded,  so  that  of  the  mysterious  ‘ attachment  ’ effects 
little  remains  but  the  withdrawal  of  nutrient  material, 
the  toxic  effect  of  the  excretions  and  the  destruction  of 
tissues — the  wastefulness,  and  consequent  pathology  of 
it  all.  Indeed  the  case  of  the  free  microbes  in  the  soil 
capable  of  gathering  nitrogen  without  the  assistance  of 
any  host  plant  so  long  as  the  appropriate  stimulations 


BIOLOGICAL  ECONOMY 


83 


are  present  shows  that  ‘ attachments  ’ are  the  least 
important  item,  and  food  stimulation  the  more  important. 

Coming  to  the  consideration  of  the  ‘ Effects  of 
Parasitism  on  Parasites  ’ the  article  states  : ‘ All  living 
creatures  have  a certain  degree  of  correspondence  with 
the  conditions  of  their  environment,  and  parasitism  is 
only  a special  case  of  such  adaptation.  The  widest 
generalisation  that  can  be  made  regarding  it  is  that 
parasitism  tends  towards  a rigid  adaptation  to  a relatively 
limited  stable  environment,  whilst  free  life  tends  towards 
a looser  correspondence  with  a more  varying  environment.’ 

This,  from  my  point  of  view,  of  course  seems  far  too 
vague  and  inadequate  a statement  to  make.  That  the 
environment  has  effects  I do  not  deny,  but  I affirm  that 
organisms  are  to  a large  extent  responsible  for  their 
environment,  and  that  it  corresponds  mainly  with  their 
economic  activity.  So  long  as  this  is  healthy  they  retain 
choice,  with  possibilities  of  determining  their  environ- 
ment rather  than  being  extremely  determined  by  it. 
When  economic  activities  become  unhealthy,  choice 
vanishes,  and  thereupon  dire  necessities  of 4 special  ’ and 
4 rigid  ’ and  4 limited  ’ adaptations  set  in  which  entail 
degeneration.  Parasitism  is  the  condition  of  a too 
precarious  hold  on  environment ; it  is  indeed  a 4 special  ’ 
adaptation  in  the  sense  in  which  I have  already  circum- 
scribed this  indefinite  term,  and  it  is  a rigid  and  limited 
adaptation  primarily  in  the  sense  that  it  lacks  the  elements 
of  progress. 


84 


EVOLUTION  BY  CO-OPERATION 


I fail  to  see,  however,  how  there  can  be  the  condition 
of  a stable  environment  for  a parasite  in  view  of  the  ‘ ex- 
tensive modifications  ’ that  are  its  direct  result ; the  ‘ host- 
environment  ’ quickly  changes  for  the  worse  and  may  be 
succumbs  altogether;  the  miserable  ‘guest 5 likewise  quickly 
loses  what  capacities  for  production  it  once  possessed,  and  is 
moreover  increasingly  the  prey  of  other  parasites  infesting 
it  in  turn,  and  further  modifying  it  in  the  negative  direction. 

In  endeavouring  to  delineate  the  course  of  parasitic 
evolution,  the  article  has  recourse  to  metaphors  : ‘ The 
summum  bonum  of  a parasite  is  to  reach  and  maintain 
existence  in  the  limited  conditions  afforded  by  its  host. 
The  goal  of  the  free-living  organism  is  a varying  or 
experimental  fitness  for  varying  surrounding  conditions. 
And,  if  the  metaphor  be  continued,  the  danger  of 
parasitism  for  the  parasite  is  that  when  it  becomes  too 
nicely  adjusted  to  the  special  conditions  of  its  host,  and 
fails  to  attain  these,  it  will  inevitably  perish.’ 

My  comment  is  that  the  moment  we  admit  the  neces- 
sity for  bio-economic  function,  failing  which  organisms 
gradually  degenerate,  all  these  metaphorical  attempts 
at  explanation  are  obviated 

The  acme  of  special  pleading,  however,  is  reached 
in  the  following  statements : 4 The  degeneration  of 

parasites  is  merely  a more  precise  adaptation  to  the 
favourable  environment.  The  degenerate  or  specialised 
parasite  is  best  equipped  for  successful  existence,  but  the 
smallest  change  of  environment  is  fatal.’ 


BIOLOGICAL  ECONOMY 


85 


This  logic  is  necessitated  by  the  corollary  of  the 
doctrine  of  Natural  Selection,  in  so  far  as  this  doctrine 
asserts  that  it  is  only  the  fittest  that  survive,  and  posits 
mere  reproduction  as  the  criterion  of  genuine  survival. 
Those  that  were  not  the  fittest  have  been  exterminated,  and 
those  at  any  time  and  anywhere  succeeding  in  mere  repro- 
duction are  the  fittest,  hence  there  would  be  nothing 
pathological  unless  the  ‘ operation’  of  natural  selection 
was  sometimes  and  somehow  mysteriously  inhibited. 

The  adherent  of  this  doctrine  thinks  he  is  constrained 
to  deny  the  pathology  of  parasitism,  just  as  he  denies 
the  well-authenticated  facts  regarding  the  existence  of 
disease  in  wild  nature.  The  following  terms,  apart  from 
other  allegorical  explanations,  therefore  have  to  do  duty 
in  the  place  of  the  simple  word  ‘ unhealthy  ’ : peculiar 
adaptation,  special  adaptation,  rigid,  limited,  stable, 
precise,  nicely  adjusted  adaptation,  extensive  modifica- 
tion, dependence,  habit,  simplification,  specialisation. 

What  is  successful  existence  ? What  is  the  standard  ? 
Can  it  really  be  in  the  light  of  the  hypothesis  of  evolution 
that  mere  existence,  mere  reproduction  are  criteria  of 
success  ? Is  it  possible  that  an  adaptation  which  is 
fatal  on  the  slightest  change  can  in  any  way  be  termed 
successful  ? Is  it  possible  that  from  the  transformation 
undergone  by  a parasite  a rise  of  type  is  likely — unless 
indeed,  a recovery  from  parasitism  took  place  first  ? 
Can  it  well  be  that  the  most  sluggish  of  all,  those  who,  in 
economic  language,  only  import  and  never  export,  and 


86 


EVOLUTION  BY  CO-OPERATION 


thus  levy  tribute  only,  and  who  fail  even  to  maintain 
their  inheritance,  and  injure  others  in  their  failure  and 
fall,  are  the  most  successful  ? 

In  a bio-sociological  sense  Thomson  and  Geddes  have 
quite  recently  told  us  ‘ it  is  essentially  the  free-living  and 
self-supporting  creatures  that  really  get  on,  that  evolve 
in  the  best  sense.’  I maintain  that  in  every  important 
sense  this  is  quite  ascertainably  the  case. 

What  are  the  ‘ peculiarities  ’ of  what  the  article  calls 
our  most  successful  biological  relations  ? 

‘ Organs  of  prehension  are  notably  developed.’  ‘ The 
normal  organs  of  locomotion  tend  to  disappear,  whether 
these  be  wings  or  walking  legs.  Organs  of  sense,  the 
chief  purpose  of  which  is  to  make  animals  react  quickly 
to  changes  of  environment,  become  degenerate  in  pro- 
portion as  the  changes  which  the  parasite  has  to  encounter 
are  diminished.’  ‘ The  parasitic  higher  plant  tends  to 
lose  its  divisions  into  stem  and  leaves  and  roots,  and  to 
acquire  a compact  and  amorphous  body,  the  animal  has 
no  longer  to  seek  its  food,  and  the  lithe  segmentation  of  a 
body  adapted  to  locomotion  is  substituted  by  a squat  or 
insinuating  form.’ 

This  is  clearly  an  undoing  of  the  wrork  of  evolution, 
for  the  losses  are  vital  and  devoid  of  redemptive  com- 
pensations in  other  directions.  Morphogeny  would  bear 
me  out  were  it  not  for  the  doctrine  that  ‘ Natural  Selection 
acts  perpetually  and  on  an  enormous  scale  in  weeding  out 
the  “ unfit  ” at  every  stage  of  existence,  and  preserving 


BIOLOGICAL  ECONOMY 


87 


only  those  which  are  in  all  respects  the  very  best.’  By 
‘ Natural  Selection  ’ a writer  generally  means  one  of 
many  things.  The  formula  is  usually  supposed  to  denote 
Nature’s  disciplinary  school,  where  that  which  the  protean 
parent  ‘ variation  ’ has  mysteriously  produced  is  looked 
after  by  the  harshest  of  schoolmasters,  whose  destructive 
constructiveness  is  such  as  to  kill  all  save  those  individuals 
most  self-assertive  with  regard  to  food  and  reproduction. 
These  are  the  fittest  schoolboys,  and  presently  they 
assist  their  schoolmaster  in  furthering  the  common 
good  by  the  destruction  of  all  who  appear  to  be  in  their 
way.  So  long  as  everything  is  not  destroyed,  it  logically 
follows  that  something  is  preserved.  It  is  ‘ favoured.’ 
There  we  have  preservation  by  a kind  of  logical  sequence. 
Preservation  and  evolution,  one  might  think,  result  from 
destruction  which  is  only  partial.  But,  surely,  we  cannot 
remain  satisfied  with  an  explanation  which  is  based  on  a 
mysterious  advent  of  variations,  on  a mysterious  ‘ favour  ’ 
of  preservation,  which  disregards,  or  under-estimates,  the 
co-operative  factors,  and  which  is  so  largely  composed  of 
metaphorical  and  dialectic  elements.  We  cannot  remain 
satisfied  with  any  theory  which  does  not  allow  for  evolu- 
tion by  quality.  Of  course  I do  not  deny  their  proper 
value  to  competitive  efforts,  but  I hold  with  Schiller  : 

Grosses  wirket  ihr  Streit, 

Grosseres  wirket  ihr  Bund. 

The  case  of  parasitism  shows  that  Natural  Selection, 
in  so  far  as  it  is  supposed  to  act  solely  by  the  preservation 


88 


EVOLUTION  BY  CO-OPERATION 


of  variations  beneficial  to  the  organism  under  the  con- 
ditions to  which  it  is  exposed,  is  a principle  by  which 
anything  and  everything  may  be  explained,  including  the 
most  flagrant  abuses  of  function  ; that  it  is  utterly  devoid 
of  any  standard  to  which  to  refer  the  relations  between 
organism  and  its  environment.  Preservation  in  Natural 
Selection  leaves  out  the  most  important  factor  of  all, 
viz.  that  which  preserves  the  organism  from  itself. 
Darwinism  has  shown  how  organisms  may  protect  them- 
selves against  the  inordinate  appetites  of  others,  but  not 
how  they  are  in  need  of  protecting  themselves  from  their 
own  inordinate  desires.  Darwinism  is  thus  in  danger 
of  becoming  a doctrine  of  expediency. 

We  are  further  told  in  the  ‘ Encyclopedia  Britannica’ : 
‘ The  reproduction  of  parasites  offers  many  peculiarities, 
all  of  which  are  readily  correlated  with  our  generalisation. 
A creature  rigidly  adapted  to  a special  environment  fails 
when  it  does  not  reach  that  environment,  and  hence  species 
most  successful  in  reproduction  are  able  to  afford  the 
greatest  number  of  misses  to  secure  some  hits,  and  so  to 
maintain  existence.  High  reproductive  capacity  is  still 
more  urgent  when  the  parasites  tend  to  bring  an  end  to 
their  own  environment  by  killing  their  hosts.  Repro- 
duction in  parasites,  so  far  from  being  degenerate,  displays 
an  exuberance  of  activity  and  an  extraordinary  efficiency. 
In  parasitic  flowering  plants,  the  flowers  tend  to  be  highly 
conspicuous,  the  seeds  to  be  numerous  and  specially 
adapted  to  ready  diffusion.’ 


BIOLOGICAL  ECONOMY 


89 


There  is,  in  this  passage,  in  my  opinion,  bad  economics, 
based  on  a superficial  philosophy.  Surely  we  must  read 
this  supposed  success  of  reproduction  in  conjunction  with 
the  loss  of  vital  parts  and  of  vital  correlations.  The 
apparent  success  in  one  direction  is  too  dearly  purchased 
by  the  losses  in  other  more  vital  directions.  What  was 
purchased  under  tremendous  sacrifices  by  their  ancestors 
is  now  squandered  by  profligate  organisms,  and  allows  only 
one  amongst  a thousand  offspring  to  pursue  the  shadow 
of  what  was  once  a true  biological  career.  All  the  other 
offspring  are  wasted,  and  we  have  a minimum  of  result 
at  a maximum  of  cost. 

As  regards  parasitic  flowering  plants,  apart  from  the 
morphological  deterioration  already  referred  to,  it  is  a 
notorious  fact  that  in  the  absence  of  green  leaves  they 
can  only  maintain  herbaceous,  soft,  and  short-lived 
stems,  with  at  best  isolated  strands  of  wood  and  phloem 
tissue.  They  are  marked  by  accelerated  and  unregulated 
growth,  and  hence  (and  this  is  most  important)  by  loss  of 
position  in  the  system.  The  absence  of  woody  stems, 
moreover,  spells  absence  of  resistance  to  varying  conditions 
of  climate  and  weather. 

Moreover,  the  abnormal  stimulation  produced  by 
illegitimate  feeding  habit  is  certainly  a more  potent  factor 
of  the  redundancy  of  reproduction  than  any  supposed  aim 
on  the  part  of  the  parasite  to  secure  a chance  or  a hit  for 
one  of  its  myriad  seeds.  Maupas  has  shown  that  in  the 
case  of  infusorians  the  reproductive  power  depends  on 


90 


EVOLUTION  BY  CO-OPERATION 


the  quality  and  quantity  of  the  food.  The  reproductive 
capacity  itself  was  equally  high,  or  higher,  before  the 
parasite  had  started  on  its  career  of  prodigality,  but  it 
was  then  under  normal  and  seasonable  restraint,  and 
not  made  use  of  in  such  prodigal  fashion.  It  was  once 
correlated  with  other  functions  and  those  of  other  parts 
now  lost.  It  once  had  valuable  biological  correlations — 
now  lost. 

We  must  further  remember  the  usual  association  of 
parasitism  with  all  recognised  modes  of  degenerate  re- 
production, such  as  parthenogenesis  with  reproductive 
nemesis  and  its  enormous  liability  to  infection.  Self- 
fertilisation was  found  by  Darwin,  as  we  have  found 
parasitism,  not  to  be  prejudicial  to  numbers  ; but,  its 
offspring  being  rather  susceptible  to  disease,  this  was  one 
of  his  reasons  for  stigmatising  it  as  ‘ abhorred  by  Nature.’ 
Since  his  day  our  eyes  have  been  more  opened  to  the 
fact  that  infection  is  largely  synonymous  with  disease, 
and  we  can  no  longer  hesitate  to  stigmatise  the  parasitic 
condition  as  a pathological  one — nay,  as  the  very  essence 
of  the  morbid  biological  relation  which  sets  one  member 
against  another. 

The  article  tells  us  further  that  ‘ the  general 
tendency  is  in  the  direction  of  absolute  limitation 
of  one  parasite,  and  indeed  one  stage  of  one  parasite, 
to  one  kind  of  host.  The  series  of  events  seems  to 
be  a gradual  progression  of  temporary  or  occasional 
parasitism  to  obligatory  parasitism,  and  to  a further 


BIOLOGICAL  ECONOMY 


91 


restriction  of  the  obligatory  parasite  to  a particular  kind 
of  host.’ 

This  confirms  my  remarks  concerning  the  intensifica- 
tion of  the  parasitic  diathesis.  It  shows  that  life  under 
these  circumstances  becomes  more  limited  in  its  range 
and  of  less  consequence  at  every  stage.  This  absolute 
limitation  must  be  read  in  conjunction  with  increasing 
liability  to  infection.  Thus  the  ‘ clothes-moth  is  known 
to  be  subject  to  the  attack  of  over  sixty  species  of 
Hymenoptera,  and,  it  is  said,  to  such  an  extent  has 
parasitism  been  developed  in  this  group  that  the  parasites 
themselves  are  attacked  by  other  parasites — giving  rise 
to  the  phenomenon  known  as  hyper-parasitism.  Surely 
this  does  not  represent  successful  existence ! No  pro- 
gressive evolution  is  conceivable  from  these  conditions. 
Parasites  may  breed  exuberantly  and  in  explosive  fashion 
for  a time,  but  the  inevitable  retribution  sooner  or  later 
supervenes.  Nothing  is  more  pathetic,  no  failure  is 
greater  in  Nature,  than  that  which  results  in  starvation  in 
the  midst  of  plenty,  for  that  is  the  true  condition  of  the 
myriads  of  ‘ misses  ’ in  view  of  the  fatal  fastidiousness  of 
the  obligatory  parasite. 

It  is  when  he  comes  to  the  effects  of  parasitism  on 
the  host,  when  he  cannot  help  noticing  the  metabolic  and 
economic  disturbances  produced,  that  the  writer  of  the 
article  hints  at  a more  enlightened  view  to  come  concern- 
ing the  nature  of  parasitism.  ‘ The  intensity  of  the 
effect  of  parasitism  on  the  hosts  of  the  parasites  ranges 


92 


EVOLUTION  BY  CO-OPERATION 


from  the  smallest  local  injury  to  complete  destruction. 
Most  animals  and  plants  harbour  a number  of  parasites 
and  seem  to  be  unaffected  by  them.  On  the  other  band, 
as  special  knowledge  increases,  the  range  of  the  direct 
and  indirect  effect  of  parasites  is  seen  to  be  greater.’ 
(Follow  a few  instances  of  wounds  and  abrasions,  affording 
entrance  to  destructive  spores.)  ‘ As  knowledge  advances 
the  indirect  effects  of  parasitism  are  seen  to  be  of  more 
and  more  importance.’  (Follows  a list  of  further  indirect 
injuries.)  ‘ Through  the  wounds  caused  by  biting  insects, 
the  microbes  of  various  skin  diseases  and  inflammation 
may  gain  entrance  subsequently,  or  the  insects  may  them- 
selves be  the  carriers  of  the  dangerous  endoparasites,  as  in 
the  case  of  mosquitoes  and  malaria,  fleas  and  plague, 
tsetse  flies  and  sleeping  sickness.’  ‘ The  irritation  caused 
through  movements  or  the  secretions  of  parasites  may 
set  up  a reaction  in  the  tissues  of  the  host  leading  to 
abnormal  growths.’  ‘ The  abstraction  of  food  substances 
from  the  tissues  of  the  guest  may  be  insignificant  even 
when  the  parasites  are  dangerous  ; but  it  is  notable  that 
in  many  cases  the  effect  is  not  only  that  of  causing  an 
extra  drain  on  the  food-supply  of  .the  host,  which  might 
be  met  by  increased  appetite.  The  reaction  is  frequently 
selective  ; particular  substances,  such  as  glycogen,  are 
absorbed  in  quantities  or  particular  organs  are  especially 
attacked,  with  the  consequent  overthrow  of  the  metabolic 
balance.  Serious  anaemia,  out  of  all  proportion  to  the 
mass  of  parasites  present,  is  frequently  produced,  and  the 


BIOLOGICAL  ECONOMY 


98 


hosts  become  weak  and  fail  to  thrive.  The  most  usual 
and  serious  effect  of  their  hosts  of  parasites  is,  however, 
the  result  of  toxins  liberated  by  them.’ 

We  thus  see  again  that  the  effects  of  parasitism  are 
mainly  pathological  and  incidental  on  the  overthrow  of 
the  metabolic  balance.  Whatever  part  of  the  host  is 
particularly  attacked,  the  former  correlations  of  parts 
must  be  disturbed,  which  produces  further  disturbances, 
as  regards  extra-organismal  relations.  The  production  and 
change  of  form  are  due  to  increase  or  diminution  of  the 
activities  of  groups  of  cells,  under  due  regularisation  of 
functions,  which  regularisations,  as  we  have  seen,  derive 
their  legitimacy  from  due  economic  activity.  We  have 
likewise  seen  that  labour  is  activity  systematically  applied, 
and  capital  nothing  but  stored-up  energy.  In  the  same 
way  we  may  say  that  the  production  of  form  is  the  result 
of  work.  Now  it  is  obvious  that  parasitism  essentially 
violates  all  these  conditions  of  work,  and  what  little  of 
systematic  activity  remains  is  non-productive,  and  quite 
regardless  of,  indeed  detrimental  to,  external  or  general 
utility.  The  place  of  profitable  enzymes  calculated  to 
produce  generally  useful  substances  is  taken  by  toxins 
calculated  to  poison  other  and  higher  organisms.  The 
parasite’s  currency  consists  of  toxins  and  is  utterly  devoid 
of  a redemptive  basis.  Nutritional  and  sexual  amphi- 
mixis are  distorted  or  inhibited,  the  uniting  material 
not  being  adequately  matured.  The  nutritional  soil 
provided  by  a parasite’s  body  is  not  attuned,  as  it  were, 


94 


EVOLUTION  BY  CO-OPERATION 


to  a sufficient  range  of  vibrations  to  maintain  former 
organs,  the  outcomes  of  former  correlations.  The  pos- 
sibilities of  metabolic  response  to  progressive  vibrations 
are  being  lost.  The  important  conclusion  which  emerges, 
and  which  I wish  to  insist  upon,  is  that  parasitism  is  a 
morbid  condition  which  results  in  degeneration  and 
ultimate  destruction  of  the  organism  concerned,  and  that 
this  is  due  to  its  violation  of  what  I conceive  to  be  the 
fundamental  law  of  co-operation  in  the  biological  world. 


CHAPTER  II 

SELECTION 

‘ It  is  to  be  regretted  that  at  the  present  time  so  many  naturalists 
accept  the  theory  of  Natural  Selection  as  an  exclusive  explanation  of 
the  evolution  of  existing  species.  They  unconsciously  blind  them- 
selves to  the  existence  of  any  other  agent  in  the  work  of  evolution.’ 
(Chajrles  Dixon,  Nature,  vol.  xxxiii.,  p.  128.) 

The  Darwinian  outline  of  evolution,  as  Fechner  has 
already  pointed  out,  relies  upon  the  play  of  purposeless 
and  aimless  forces  of  nature,  which  displays  the  character 
of  purposiveness  only  in  so  far  as  its  non-expedient  results 
get  the  worst  of  it  and  therefore  must  make  room  for  the 
expedient  results.  To  such  a view  Fechner  objects.  In 
any  case  he  avers  that  this  Darwinian  principle  of  the 
struggle  for  existence  is  subordinate  to  the  principle 
of  the  mutual  dependence  of  organic  beings. 

He  rightly  demurs  to  the  method  which  attempts 
to  represent  the  reciprocal  principle  as  a mere  secondary 
success  of  Natural  Selection.  It  is  an  after-thought  of  a 
very  inadequate  and  inconvenient  premiss  to  argue,  as 
Darwinists  do,  that  only  those  organisms  will  survive 
together  which  have  modified  themselves  so  as  to  exist 


96 


EVOLUTION  BY  CO-OPERATION 


best  together,  and  that  the  others  will  become  extinct. 
But  where  do  Darwinists  allude  to  the  fundamental 
conditions  under  which  this  mutual  suitability  occurs  ? 

The  chief  actors  being  accident  or  automatic  and 
unconscious  selection,  according  to  the  particular  con- 
ditions of  an  accidental  environment,  -whence  arises  the 
altruistic  factor  ? 

The  fundamental  condition  of  reciprocal  suitability  of 
organisms,  however,  depends  on  the  forces  of  co-operation 
arising  from  within,  and  irrespective  of  accidents,  en- 
vironment, and  expedients. 

To  be  co-operative  is  a matter  of  purposive,  organis- 
mal  selection  (using  the  term  in  its  proper  connotation). 
Thus  we  have  ‘ selection  ’ re-transferred  to  its  proper 
place,  viz.  within  the  organism.  The  moment  organisms 
elect  to  be  reciprocal,  they  are  no  longer  at  the  mercy  of 
chance,  but  render  themselves  increasingly  independent 
from  all  those  factors  which  Darwin  included  in  his 
‘ Natural  Selection.’ 

Accident  can  have  played  little  part  in  the  origination 
of  the  method  of  reciprocity,  as  Fechner  points  out.  Says 
he  : ‘ In  vain  do  I look  in  the  theory  of  Natural  Selection 
for  a principle  according  to  which  the  forces  there  indicated 
could  produce  such  universal  reciprocal  differentiation 
as  is  presented  by  the  two  (separated)  sexes  (though  both 
subjected  to  the  same  influences  in  the  same  locality).’ 

He  continues : ‘ It  is  futile  to  urge  the  advantage  of 
division  of  labour  from  the  point  of  view  of  the  Darwinian 


SELECTION 


97 


theory,  although  of  course  these  advantages  exist.  But 
if  the  division  of  labour  in  any  business  is  to  be  a one- 
sided and  accidental  matter,  having  to  wait  until  accident 
fulfils  the  role  of  the  other  party,  the  advantages  would 
soon  be  turned  into  disadvantages  and  the  bi-sexual 
process  would  fail  rather  than  supplant  the  unisexual 
process.  I cannot  see  how,  on  the  hypothesis  of  Natural 
Selection  as  it  stands,  the  division  of  labour  in  the  process 
of  reproduction  could  have  been  arrived  at  other  than 
with  such  result.’ 

The  question  has  indeed  been  asked  : ‘ Why  should 
fertilisation  occur  at  all,  if  parthenogenesis  in  some 
cases  works"  so  well?’  It  cannot  be  answered  satis- 
factorily by  Darwinism,  where  everything  is  a matter 
of  expediency,  any  more  than  the  question  raised  by 
Darwin  himself : ‘ What  should  it  benefit  the  intestinal 
worm  to  be  highly  organised  ? ’ Similar  objections 
have,  of  course,  been  raised  before  by  writers  who,  as 
regards  variations,  complained  of  the  lack  of  a definite 
and  persistent  principle  in  Darwinism. 

As  pointed  out  by  Samuel  Butler,  Professor  Fleeming 
Jen  kin,  and  by  Herbert  Spencer,  it  is  vital  that  variations, 
as  Butler  says,  * should  be  supposed  to  have  a definite 
and  persistent  principle  underlying  them  which  shall 
tend  to  engender  similar  and  simultaneous  modifications, 
however  small,  in  the  vast  majority  of  individuals  com- 
posing any  species.  The  existence  of  such  a principle,  and 
its  permanence,  is  the  only  thing  that  can  be  supposed 


98 


EVOLUTION  BY  CO-OPERATION 


capable  of  acting  as  a rudder  and  compass  to  the  accumula- 
tion of  variations,  and  of  making  it  keep  steadily  on  one 
course  for  every  species,  until  eventually  many  havens 
far  remote  from  one  another  are  safely  reached.’ 

I believe  that  I have  shown  that  reciprocity  in  nature 
— whatever  be  its  origin — in  order  to  be  permanent, 
requires  the  organismal  selection  of  appropriate  food, 
and  further  that  this  autonomous  factor  simultaneous^ 
involves  vital  bio-economic  factors — all  combining  to 
provide  the  definiteness  and  purposiveness  that  are 
required. 

The  conditions  for  a purposive  (harmonious)  and 
reciprocal  common  life  of  organisms  thus  are  not  created 
by  the  struggle  for  existence,  but  at  best  only  com- 
plemented. 

The  efficiency  of  the  co-operative  system,  when 
impaired  at  any  time  by  excesses,  is  being  gradually 
restored  by  a self-acting  process  analogous  to  self-acting 
pathological  processes  in  the  animal  organism.  In  the 
human  body  also  the  principle  of  reciprocal  differentiation 
presides  over  the  formation  of  the  various  organs, 
except  that  no  actual  separation  of  parts  takes  place, 
and  hence  there  is  not  the  same  need  for  corrections 
through  a ‘ struggle  for  existence  ’ of  the  separated 
parts,  such  as  is  required  in  the  development  of  the 
organic  world. 

But  in  so  far  as  we  may  (in  a more  restricted  sense) 
view  disease  as  an  attempt  at  correction  or  as  a struggle 


SELECTION 


99 


between  contending  parts,  we  may  also  view  biological 
competition  and  elimination  as  a corrective  process,  only 
on  a vaster  scale  and  operating  through  time.  This  slow 
and  widespread  disease-process  has  little  to  do  with  the 
building  up  of  endowments  except  as  a warning  wherever 
it  is  attended  by  pain. 

We  are  told  that,  as  the  result  of  objections,  in  1867 
Darwin  ‘ recognised  that  natural  selection  acts,  not  by 
preserving  a few  highly  favoured  individuals,  but  by 
killing  off  all  those  which  do  not  come  up  to  a certain 
standard.’ 

Clearly  this  is  an  indication  of  a biological  corrective 
process  analogous  to  the  physiological  corrective  process 
that  many  of  us  suppose  disease  to  be.  As  a biological 
corrective  process  Natural  Selection  might  tolerably 
pass,  so  long  as  we  make  due  allowance  for  the  elements 
of  time,  of  organismal  autonomy  and  plasticity.  As 
regards  the  time-element,  I hold  with  Fechner  that, 
‘ in  the  history  of  the  world  disharmonies  may  exist 
through  a millennium,  their  dissolution  taking  place 
only  in  a second  one.  . . .’ 

‘ The  dissolution  of  the  evil  consists  in  the  fact  that 
from  the  general  order  of  things  to  which  it  is  opposed 
reactions  must  arise,  which  growT  as  the  evil  grows  and 
finally  overgrow  it ; whereby  not  only  may  the  evil  be 
relieved,  but  positively  turned  into  a source  of  a future 
good.’ 

Hence,  though  I admit  the  presence  of  self-acting 


100 


EVOLUTION  BY  CO-OPERATION 


corrective  processes,  I cannot  share  the  Dr.  Pangloss 
philosophy  to  which  Darwinists  adhere,  in  view  of  the 
supposed  omnipotence  of  Natural  Selection.  The  pro- 
position that  the  maintenance  of  health  requires  manifold 
elimination,  moreover,  is  something  quite  different  from 
that  one  which — in  view  of  a great  deal  of  elimination 
— declares  that,  everywhere  and  normally,  too  many 
individuals  are  born.  Health,  however,  is  the  antidote 
of  waste,  and  generally  the  concomitant  of  wholesome 
economic  activity.  Of  healthy  and  wholesomely  active 
individuals  there  can  scarcely  be  too  many  in  the  world. 
It  is  when  wre  come  to  the  morbid  types,  the  wastrels, 
that  we  find  true  redundancy. 

Their  retrogression  and  eventual  elimination  thus 
truly  form  part  of  the  great  pathological  process  of 
Nature  which  attends  and  complements  her  physiological 
work.  So  long  as  we  continue  to  look  upon  every  appetite 
as  normal  and  quasi-sacrosanct — in  so  far  as  it  remains 
consonant  with  any  kind  of  reproduction — we  shall 
deny  the  pathology  of  parasites,  for  instance,  and  mix  up 
the  fate  of  their  offspring  with  that  of  productive  organ- 
isms ; we  shall  continue  to  consider  the  relation  of  produc- 
tion to  consumption  in  the  organic  world  as  necessarily 
chaotic,  and  the  question  of  population  will  necessarily 
remain,  in  Huxley’s  words,  ‘ the  real  riddle  of  the  Sphinx.’ 

Being  able  duly  to  complement  Darwin’s  account  of 
warfare,  of  competition,  and  of  starvation  in  Nature  by 
that  of  work  and  sendees,  of  mutual  production,  of 


SELECTION 


101 


reciprocal  differentiation  and  of  ‘ natural  gestation,’  we 
have  now  reached  a more  correct  appreciation  of  Nature’s 
processes  and  we  have  likewise  gained  a better  perspec- 
tive concerning  the  place  of  individuals  and  of  groups  in 
the  world  of  life. 

We  may  now  proceed  to  indicate  some  of  the  modi- 
fications required  by  Darwin’s  theory  in  the  light  and 
in  terms  of  a more  complete  Natural  Economy. 

When  Darwin  says  that  ‘ every  plant  and  animal 
must  maintain  the  struggle  for  life  ’ we  may  now  interpret 
it  to  mean  that  every  organism  is  under  the  obligation 
of  rendering  some  kind  of  bio-economic  service.  When  he 
proceeds  : ‘ and  in  order  to  its  continued  existence  must 
be  successful  in  maintaining  it,’  we  may  say  that  this 
depends  entirely  on  bio-economic  usefulness,  short  of 
which  there  can  be  no  success  in  the  sense  of  progressive 
evolution.  Darwin  goes  on  : 

‘ Not  only  against  those  other  creatures  which  seem 
to  make  it  their  food,  but  still  more  in  a competition  with 
those  which  seek  the  same  nutriment  with  itself.’  Darwin 
speaks  of  two  ‘ canine  animals  ’ struggling  with  each 
other  in  a time  of  dearth  ; of  mistletoe  versus  mistletoe 
on  the  same  branch  ; of  mistletoe  versus  other  fruit- 
bearing plants,  all  of  which  again  raises  the  question  of 
depredation  and  of  abnormal  habits — evils  against  which 
the  strenuous  organisms  have  generally  managed  to 
defend  themselves — evils  which  belong  to  the  class  of 
disharmonies  referred  to  above.  Darwin  here  hints 


102 


EVOLUTION  BY  CO-OPERATION 


at  what  is  called  the  struggle  between  brothers  and 
cousins.  It  is  well  to  remember,  however,  that  com- 
petition for  food  between  close  relatives  may  have  all  the 
range  between,  say,  the  extreme  case  of  the  young  cuckoo 
and  his  foster-brothers  and  sisters — the  hapless  legitimate 
occupants  of  the  nest  which  are  cleared  out  by  the  young 
parasite— and  on  the  other  hand  the  avoidance  of  such 
fratricidal  struggles  by  the  principle  of  colonisation — 

‘ If  thou  wilt  take  the  left  hand,  then  I will  go  to  the  right ; 
or  if  thou  depart  to  the  right  hand,  then  I will  go  to  the 
left.  ’ Whether  there  is  to  be  a struggle  in  the  true  sense 
of  the  word,  or  a mere  matter  of  non-sanguinary  mutual 
accommodation,  depends  on  the  nutritional  habits.  The 
cuckoo  is  a rank  in-feeder — its  food  consists  almost  ex- 
clusively of  insects.  It  has  contracted  an  in-feeding  habit 
which  is  abhorred  by  Nature,  and  which  involves  it  in  a 
parasitic  diathesis.  A suggestion  regarding  its  unsatis- 
factory physiological  condition  has  been  thrown  out 
by  various  biologists,  including  Geddes  and  Thomson. 
According  to  the  old  school,  as  represented  by  Robert 
Chambers,  ‘ The  parasitical  reproduction  of  the  cuckoo 
sinks  into  that  character  which  alone  we  can  reconcile 
with  the  rest  of  the  providential  scheme, — a trivial 
exceptive  evil  in  the  midst  of  much  that  appears,  and 
undoubtedly  is,  very  good.’ 

However  that  may  be,  what  I wish  to  point  out  is  that 
sweeping  generalisations  concerning  the  ‘ struggle  for 
food  ’ cannot  be  founded  upon  extreme  cases.  ‘ In  this 


SELECTION 


103 


struggle,’  continues  Darwin,  ‘ the  stronger,  or  those  which 
possess  anything  peculiarly  favourable  in  their  organisa- 
tion, must  overcome  the  weaker.’ 

That  it  is  not  mere  physical  strength  that  leads  to 
survival  has  long  been  recognised.  That  something 
‘ peculiarly  favourable  ’ leads  to  survival  sounds  more 
feasible,  but  may  mean  anything.  The  young  cuckoo — 
described  by  naturalists  as  * an  evil-looking  little 
beast  with  a large  mouth,  a picture  of  ugliness  ’ — has 
something  ‘ peculiarly  favourable  ’ in  its  organisation, 
by  means  of  which  it  accounts  for  some  young  of  other 
species  or  for  a weaker  young  cuckoo,  as  the  case  may 
be.  The  weaker  are  overcome.  But  if  we  examine  the 
various  correlations  of  the  cuckoo’s  habit,  they  are  such 
as  to  convince  us  that  its  precarious  existence  is  purchased 
at  the  expense  of  survival  capacity,  that  in  reality  a 
slow  (pathological)  process  of  race-suicide  is  going  on. 
An  organisation  can  be  said  to  be  truly  fitted  for  survival 
only  ij.  its  various  correlations  are  of  a permanently 
satisfactory  kind.1 

The  case  of  the  cuckoo — which  is  merely  a typical 
instance  of  the  . ereditary  transmission  of  abnormal 
feeding  habits — together  with  the  corresponding  physio- 
logical and  biological  correlations — is  supposed  to  be  one 
of  the  great  puzzles  of  Darwinism.  We  are  gravely 

1 Writing  in  Wild  Life  for  May  1913,  Alfred  Taylor  comes  to  the 
conclusion  that  the  cuckoo  is  ‘ practically  an  outcast  amongst  birds,’ 
and  that  even  if  it  does  get  out  of  the  great  task  of  nest-building,  incuba- 
tion, and  the  rearing  of  its  young,  it  has  to  pay  dearly  for  the  privilege. 


104 


EVOLUTION  BY  CO-OPERATION 


assured  that  ‘ how  the  habit  of  nesting  came  to  be  lost, 
or  the  parasitic  instinct  of  occupying  the  nests  of  other 
species  and  destroying  their  young  to  be  acquired,  is 
merely  matter  for  conjecture.’ 

I have  treated  of  this  case  in  my  ‘ Survival  and 
Reproduction,’  and  the  line  I have  taken  in  indicting  the 
feeding  habits  as  primarily  responsible  for  the  cuckoo’s 
criminal  ‘ adaptations  ’ has  met  with  the  liveliest  opposi- 
tion. As  regards  the  general  importance  of  habit,  it 
seems  that  at  one  time  at  least  Lamarck  and  Darwin 
were  in  accord.  It  was  habit  (use  and  disuse  of  organs 
plus  an  inherited  tendency  to  vary),  according  to  the 
former,  that  shaped  the  organism,  and  the  latter,  in  his 
‘ Voyage  of  the  Beagle,’  speaks  of  habit  as  omnipotent 
and  hereditary  in  its  effects.  But  it  is  the  value  of  feed- 
ing habits  in  affecting  physiological  and  biological  cor- 
relations that  escaped  the  observation  of  both  naturalists. 
It  is  misuse  which  produces  at  one  and  the  same  time 
inferior  physiological  correlations  and  a plurality  of  those 
eliminative  biological  reactions  which  Darwin  thought  to 
be  due  to  a self-acting  lethal  process,  administered  by  an 
aggregate  of  natural  forces  always  bent  on  destroying 
those  which  did  not  come  up  to  a certain  standard 
dictated  by  mere  momentary  expediency.  As  regards 
transmission,  it  is  now  widely  admitted  that  long-con- 
tinued functional  modifications  may,  by  somatic  induction, 
exert  specific  effects  on  the  germ-cells.  Is  it  then  so  very 
improbable  that  improper  nutritive  stimuli,  if  continued 


SELECTION 


105 


long  enough,  are  apt  to  vitiate  the  character  of  the  germs 
pari  passu  with  that  of  the  adult  organisms  ? ‘ The 

possessors  of  any  advantage  in  the  means  of  procuring 
food,  or  in  the  powers  of  offence  or  defence,  may  entirely 
displace  their  less  favoured  congeners,’  continues  Darwin. 

Those  who  obtain  their  food  by  depredation  eventually 
find  themselves  at  a disadvantage  as  compared  with  those 
who  earn  it  legitimately,  just  as  polygamist  animals  are 
under  a disadvantage  compared  with  monogamists  when 
it  comes  to  a clash.  The  true  advantage,  as  I have 
constantly  maintained,  is  not  the  local  one  that  Darwin 
emphasises,  but  the  less  conspicuous  though  more  vital 
advantage  which  consists  in  the  beneficial  effects  of 
favourable  correlated  circumstances  generally.  Those  so 
circumstanced,  moreover,  do  not  rely  on  offence,  but  on 
defence  ; and  if  they  yet  ‘ displace  ’ any  of  their  congeners 
it  is  rather  because  the  latter  fail  to  qualify  for  the  same 
position,  or  possibly  for  any  position,  in  the  polity  of 
Nature.  Not  being  organised  for  aggression,  not  needing 
the  bodies  of  their  relatives  for  food,  but  being,  on  the 
contrary,  engaged  in  maintaining  or  raising  the  level  of 
existence  and  the  security  of  life,  the  mutually  useful 
organisms  generally  content  themselves  with  defending 
their  security  rather  than  waging  a war  of  extermina- 
tion upon  others.  In  order  to  preserve  the  fit,  it  is  not 
necessary  to  destroy  the  less  fit. 

‘ Can  it  be  thought  unlikely,’  continues  Darwin, 

‘ seeing  that  variations  useful  to  man  have  undoubtedly 


106 


EVOLUTION  BY  CO-OPERATION 


occurred,  that  other  variations,  useful  in  some  way  to  each 
being  in  the  great  and  complex  battle  of  life,  should  some- 
times occur  in  the  course  of  thousands  of  generation  ? ’ 
Darwin,  in  this  passage,  touches  the  principle  of 
other-regarding  ’ usefulness.  Had  he  consistently  studied 
this  principle,  it  would  have  resulted  in  showing  the 
mysterious  good  effects  of  the  ‘ complex  battle  of  life  ’ to 
resolve  themselves  into  effects  of  bio-economic  mutuality 
instead  of  sanguinary  struggles. 

As  I have  pointed  out,  evolution  centres  round  the 
production  of  bio-economic  usefulness  generally.  Varia- 
tions must  be  useful  not  so  much  in  battles  as  in  the 
labour  of  maintaining  and  improving  organic  life,  although 
what  is  useful  in  the  workaday  world  generally  turns 
out  to  he  most  useful  in  battles  also,  where  battles  prove 
unavoidable.  Variations  are  ‘ useful  ’ to  each  being  in  so 
far  as  they  are  at  the  same  time  of  use  to  others.  Must  we 
trust  to  chance — in  the  course  of  thousands  of  genera- 
tions— for  an  occurrence  of  true  usefulness  in  evolution  ? 

Usefulness  was  there  from  the  first,  and  it  was  only 
due  to  its  gradual  superabundant  production  that  evolu- 
tion could  progress  at  all. 

Expressed  in  terms  of  Bio-Economics,  Darwin’s 
proposition  regarding  the  advent  of  useful  variations 
might  be  stated  thus  : Can  it  be  thought  unlikely  that 
organisms  equipped  with  a fair  share  of  autonomy,  and 
constantly  called  upon  to  solve  a plurality  of  domestic 
and  bio-economic  problems,  frequently  proved  equal  to 


SELECTION 


107 


their  tasks  and  responded  in  a manner  so  as  to  become 
gradually  modified  in  accordance  with  their  increasing 
powers  of  service  ? 

We  are  further  told  by  Darwin : ‘ Any  variations  in 
the  slightest  degree  injurious  would  be  rigidly  destroyed.’ 

This  figment  of  imagination  forms  a part  of  the 
gospel  of  Darwinism.  In  the  sophistical  way  in  which  it 
is  generally  used  ,it  doe  s,  in  myopinion,  incalculable  harm. 

I have  said  so  again  and  again,  and  I concur 
with  Samuel  Butler’s  almost  identical  words,  which  I 
have  only  lately  come  across,  that  ‘ it  is  a discouraging 
symptom  of  the  age  that  such  a system  should  have  been 
so  long  belauded.’ 

What  Darwinists  wish  to  establish  is  a faith — faith 
in  a self-acting,  natural  process,  which  by  implication 
acts  so  well  that  there  is  no  need  to  give  any  detailed 
explanations  of  facts,  so  long  as  you  believe.  It  is  so 
simple  to  believe  that  all  that  is  really  injurious  is  at  once 
destroyed,  and  equally  simple  on  this  belief  to  build  the 
further  inference  (so  cherished  by  Darwinists)  that  what 
survives  (what  is)  is  best.  Hence  Natural  Selection,  the 
supposed  (though  mysterious)  agency,  being  answerable 
for  the  best,  has  undoubtedly  been  the  most  potent  factor 
in  evolution  ! It  must  be  so  ! says  Prof.  J.  S.  Macdonald* 
of  Sheffield.1  ‘ It  is  perhaps  for  the  very  reason  that 

1 ‘ Have  we  any  right  to  assume,’  asks  Darwin,  ‘ that  the  Creator 
works  by  intellectual  powers  like  those  of  man  ? ’ Let  us  hope  He 
does  not ! 


108 


EVOLUTION  BY  CO-OPEBATION 


Darwinism  is  so  simple,’  complains  Dr.  Wallace,  ‘ that 
it  is  so  persistently  misunderstood.’ 

Now,  as  I have  said  before,  I am  willing  to  believe  in 
some  kind  of  self-acting  process  such  as  many  of  us  believe 
disease  to  be,  only  on  a vaster  scale  and  involving  many 
long  drawn-out  pathological  processes.  Such  a belief, 
however,  is  not  the  same  as,  nor  is  it  indeed  compatible 
with,  the  story  of  a rigid  and  immediate  destruction  of  all 
noxious  variations.  (Dr.  Wallace  goes  so  far  as  to  say  of 
Natural  Selection  : ‘ It  prevents  any  possible  deterioration 
in  the  organic  world.’)  Far  from  it.  Nor  do  the  facts 
of  nature  bear  out  such  a creed.  What  is  wanted  is  a 
detailed  examination  of  those  vast  pathological  processes 
which  so  frequently  accompany  physiological  processes 
and  determine  extinction,  instead  of  having  their  existence 
denied  by  sophisticated  argument. 

‘ This  preservation  of  favourable  variations  and  the 
rejection  of  unfavourable  variations  I call  Natural 
Selection,’  declares  Darwin. 

The  fact  that  neither  physiological  nor  pathological 
processes  underlying  survival  on  the  one  hand  and 
elimination  on  the  other  are  adequately  described  by 
Darwinists,  confirms  me  in  the  view  that  ‘ Natural 
Selection  ’ acts  mainly  by  making  sophists  of  otherwise 
able  and  learned,  though  not  always  too  amiable  men. 
Once,  however,  we  are  able  rationally  to  combine  the 
economic  and  physiological  (or  pathological)  factors — 
just  as  it  now  turns  out  that  pathology  and  criminality  are 


SELECTION 


109 


closely  related— the  services  of  Natural  Selection  will  be 
no  longer  needed,  I affirm,  in  t-lie  whole  range  of  biology. 

As  regards  ‘ favourable  modifications,’  Samuel  Butler 
argues  that : ‘ Plain  people  would  prefer  to  say  that  the 
main  cause  of  any  accumulation  of  favourable  modifica- 
tions consists  rather  in  that  which  brings  about  the  initial 
variations,  and  in  the  fact  that  these  can  be  inherited 
at  all,  than  in  the  fact  that  the  unmodified  individuals 
were  not  successful.— People  do  not  become  rich  because 
the  poor  in  great  numbers  go  away,  but  because  they 
have  been  lucky,  or  provident,  or  more  commonly  both. 
If  they  would  keep  their  wealth  when  they  have  made 
it  they  must  exclude  luck  thenceforth  to  the  utmost  of 
their  power,  and  their  children  must  follow  their  example 
or  they  will  soon  lose  their  money.’ 

Darwin  further  says  : ‘ Natural  Selection  includes  no 
necessary  and  universal  law  of  advancement  or  develop- 
ment ; it  only  takes  advantage  of  such  variations  as 
arise  and  are  beneficial  to  each  creature  under  its  complex 
relations  of  life.’ 

If  Natural  Selection  ‘ does  not  include  a necessary  and 
universal  law  of  advancement  or  development,’  it  can 
only  be  thought  of  as  a principle  of  mere  expediency, 
and  on  no  account  as  a thorough-going  economic  principle. 
In  view  of  the  bio-economic  account  of  evolution  that  I 
have  so  far  attempted  to  outline,  it  follows  that  Darwfin 
has  in  any  case  given  his  principle  of  mere  expediency  far 
too  much  to  do.  For  mere  expediency  we  have  found 


110 


EVOLUTION  BY  CO-OPERATION 


everywhere  to  conduce  to  a perversion  of  the  normal 
order.  The  number  of  species  which  selfish  expediency 
has  perverted  may  be  legion,  but  their  perpetuation  is,  I 
believe,  nevertheless  abhorred  by  Nature.  Again  I say 
that  it  seems  to  me  that  Darwin — faced  by  the  difficulty 
of  accounting  for  degeneration  without  an  adequate 
system  of  Bio-Economics — had  to  twist  his  theory  of 
evolution  in  order  to  make  it  fit  two  absolutely  opposite 
things  — expediency  and  bio-economic  usefulness,  or 
progress  and  retrogression.  Frequently,  indeed,  Darwin- 
ists invite  us  to  believe  that  those  opposites  are  really  one 
and  the  same  thing,  and  that  only  our  foolish  thinking 
makes  them  opposites  ! (‘  Darwin,’  says  an  anonymous 
contemporary  of  his,  ‘ cannot,  as  he  himself  acknowledges, 
account  for  cases  of  degeneracy  which  are  nevertheless  so 
very  numerous.  Thus  is  he  driven  by  his  system  to  deny 
every  instance  of  the  sort.’) 

The  phraseology  of  the  above  passage  from  Darwin, 
indeed,  suggests  that  it  was  the  difficulty  of  accounting 
for  degeneration  that  caused  him  trouble.  What  is  it 
that  takes  advantage  of  arising  variations  ? It  is  one  of 
two  things : (a)  General  strenuousness  and  bio-economic 
usefulness, which  are  in  themselves  the  most  fruitful  sources 
of  engendering  truly  useful  variations,  or  (b)  Sluggishness 
and  the  abuse  of  bio-economic  usefulness,  which  precisely 
engender  variations  of  an  opposite  character. 

In  the  case  of  degeneracy,  organisms  must  pay  the 
penalty,  and  instead  of  controlling  their  environment 


SELECTION 


111 


they  must  increasingly  be  controlled  by  it.  But  we 
must  not  allow  the  prevalence  of  such  retrograde 
‘ adaptations  ’ to  delude  us  into  believing  that  in  normal 
evolution  outside  agencies  are  permitted  by  strenuous 
organisms  to  control  and  ‘ take  advantage  of  ’ variations 
to  any  great  extent. 

If  mere  selfish  expediency  has  shaped  degeneration 
(by  perverting  that  which  an  original  strenuousness  of 
progenitors  had  produced),  progressive  evolution  is 
based  on  the  opposite  process,  and  has,  therefore,  little 
to  do  with  ‘ Natural  Selection.’ 

The  combined  factors,  autonomy  and  Bio-Economics, 
to  which  I have  called  attention  have  the  full  force 
of  a universal  law  of  advancement  such  as  Darwin  was 
unable  to  associate  with  his  ‘ principle.’  Mere  momentary 
expediency,  irrespective  of  bio-economic  consequences, 
has  no  place  in  the  theory  of  evolution  which  I am  pro- 
pounding, except  as  accounting  for  those  abnormalities 
which  Darwinists,  in  their  confusion,  are  constrained 
to  declare  are  not  abnormalities  in  any  sense. 

The  question  may  be  asked : How  is  it  that  the  hold 
of  the  Natural  Selection  theory  upon  many  is  such  as 
to  cause  them  to  remain  satisfied  with  their  theory  ? 
I can  explain  it  only  by  the  supposition  that,  in  spite  of 
their  protestations  to  the  contrary,  the  idea  of  Providence 
as  a compensatory  law  (of  their  principle  of  mere  ex- 
pediency) lurks  in  the  minds  of  these  thinkers.1 

1 As  an  older  writer  (Flourens)  said  : ‘ Natural  Selection  is  only 


112 


EVOLUTION  BY  CO- OPERATION 


They  may  flatter  themselves  that  they  have  sur- 
mounted the  theological  argument  by  the  use  of  the 
word  ‘ natural.’  But  this  word  also  has  a deeper  meaning, 
for  ‘ nature  ’ may  be  regarded  as  divine.  We  have  heard 
of  Him  without  whom  no  sparrow  falls  to  the  ground. 

There  appears  to  me  to  be  no  difference  between  the 
conception  of  an  omnipotent  God  who  watches  over 
every  moment  of  the  sparrow’s  life  and  that  of  ‘ Natural 
Selection,’  the  Grand  Functionary  of  Darwin,  whose  sole 
aim  is  the  ‘ advantage  ’ of  * each  creature  under  its 
complex  relations  of  life.’ 

I am  the  last  to  deny  its  proper  place  to  Theology. 
Science,  however,  persists  in  asking  : What  is  it  by  which 
this  is  done  ? 

I would  urge  that,  in  the  light  of  the  modifications 
which  we  have  now  applied,  some  of  the  early  criticism 
of  Darwin’s  theory,  in  spite  of  certain  errors,  seems  well 
aimed  and  deserves  resuscitation.  In  an  anonymous 
work,  * The  Darwinian  Theory  of  the  Transmutation  of 
Species  examined,  by  a Graduate  of  the  University  of 
Cambridge,’ 1 the  following  strictures  occur : ‘ His 

(Darwin’s)  Nature  is  Natural  Selection,  originating  in 
no  law,  and  owning  no  law  ; it  is  only  a long-sustained 


Nature  under  another  name.  Either  it  is  nothing  or  it  is  Nature,  but 
Nature  endowed  with  the  attribute  of  Selection — Nature  personified.’ 
— ‘ Aristote  disait  que  “ si  l’art  de  batir  dtait  dans  le  bois,  cet  art  agirait 
comme  la  nature.”  A la  place  de  l’art  de  batir  M.  Darwin  met  F elect  ion 
naturelle,  et  c’est  tout  un  ; Fun  n’e9t  pas  plus  chimerique  que  F autre,’ 

1 London,  James  Nisbet  & Co„  1868,  2nd  edition 


SELECTION 


118 


experiment,  an  empirical  condition  of  things,  trying  all 
correctives  and  testing  all  suggestions,  to  reach  at  last 
the  elixir  vitae  of  a future  perfection.’ 

The  writer  of  this  anonymous  book  is  in  favour  of 
design  in  Nature,  which  we  must  forgive  him,  seeing  that 
without  due  recognition  of  the  factor  of  nutrition  only 
a very  partial  account  of  cause  and  effect  in  evolution 
can  be  given.  Bearing  this  in  mind,  the  criticism  con- 
tained in  the  following  quotations  from  the  above  work 
to  me  seems  perfectly  justified : — 

‘ We  must  now  endeavour  to  ascertain  what  may  be 
the  precise  meaning  of  the  term  “ Natural  Selection,” 
which  in  itself  contains  substantially  the  'whole  of  Mr. 
Darwin’s  theory.  An  unknown  power  selects  and  makes 
choice ; it  adopts,  repudiates,  modifies,  and  changes 
certain  qualities  in  animals  and  vegetables  ; it  adds  or 
diminishes  attributes  and  endowments,  and  always  with  a 
beneficial  tendency  to  the  being  on  which  it  operates  ;i 
in  the  great  majority  of  instances  it  effects  a change  in 
the  right  direction,  after  numerous  incomplete  experiments 
indeed,  but  ultimately  with  success  ; for  improvement 
in  the  universal  struggle  for  life  is  the  general  result  of 
its  agency.  Where  does  this  power  reside  ? Is  it  in  the 
animals  and  vegetables  themselves,  or  is  it  something 
exterior  to  them  that  superintends  and  directs  this 
process  of  amelioration  ? Is  it  Nature  that  alters  the 
structures  and  the  organisation  ; and  if  so,  what  is 
Nature  ? 


i 


114 


EVOLUTION  BY  CO-OPERATION 


£ In  not  a few  instances  Mr.  Darwin  speaks  as  if 
all  this  were  accomplished  by  that  metaphorical  word, 
Nature.  “ I see,”  he  says,  “ no  limit  to  the  amount  of 
change,  to  the  beauty  and  infinite  complexity  of  the  co- 
adaptations between  all  organic  beings,  one  with  another 
and  with  their  physical  conditions  of  life,  which  may  be 
effected  in  the  long  course  of  time  by  Nature's  poicer  of 
selection." 

‘ Here  Nature  is  an  intelligent  agent,  elaborating 
organised  beings  with  beautiful  and  skilful  art,  adapting 
them  for  the  new  circumstances  of  then’  improving 
condition.  Nature  has  the  power,  the  knowledge,  the 
skill,  and  the  good  taste  to  advance  organised  beings 
towards  perfection,  in  designs  of  admirable  wisdom  and 
beauty.  Nature,  then,  has  all  the  attributes  of  the 
Creator,  with  only  a different  name  ; but  is  Nature  an 
intelligent  power,  or  is  it  a deity  ? Is  it  a god  or  a goddess  ? 
Mr.  Darwin  tells  us,  indeed,  that  he  uses  the  term 
metaphorically  ; but  why,  in  the  first  place,  all  through 
this  grave  and  profound  disquisition,  trifle  with  a metaphor 
instead  of  using  a reality  ; and  why,  in  the  next  place, 
forget  that  it  is  a metaphor  and  continually  attribute  to 
it  acts  of  intelligence  and  designs  of  incomparable  skill 
and  science  ? That  Mr.  Darwin  does  this  beyond  any 
other  writer  we  shall  presently  see  ; indeed  he  compre- 
hensively informs  us  that  “Natural  Selection  is  a 'power 
incessantly  ready  for  action,  and  is  as  immeasurably 
superior  to  man’s  feeble  efforts  as  the  works  of  Nature  are 


SELECTION 


115 


to  those  of  art.”  This,  however,  is  not  a very  fortunate 
illustration ; for  as  Mr.  Darwin  makes  Nature,  and 
Nature’s  power  of  selection,  and  Natural  Selection  all 
one,  it  only  amounts  to  this,  that  Nature’s  works  are 
as  superior  to  man’s  works  as  Nature’s  works  are.’ 

The  next  passages  show  the  difficulties  and  absurdities 
in  which  Darwin’s  narrow  idea  of  usefulness  had  landed 
him  : ‘ Here  we  must  for  a moment  resume  the  serious 
tone,  to  draw  attention  to  the  flagrant  abuse  of  words 
by  which  the  theory  is  argued.  It  has  already  been 
noticed  that  both  Natural  Selection  and  the  Struggle 
for  Existence  are  avowed  metaphors,  and  now,  when  we 
have  come  to  Nature’s  most  striking  attribute,  her  beauty, 
we  find  it  explained  to  us  as  originating  in  Natural 
Selection  in  “ a forced  sense,”  as  if  it  had  been  selected 
for  its  utility,  when  the  author  candidly  confesses  that 
it  is  of  no  direct  use.  “ The  effect  of  sexual  selection, 
when  displayed  in  beauty  to  charm  the  females,  can  only  be 
called  useful  in  rather  a forced  sense.” 

‘ Now  mark  this : unless  it  be  for  the  direct  use  of  the 
animal  or  plant,  nothing  can  be  done  by  Natural  Selection. 
This  is  the  fundamental  proposition  on  which  the  whole 
theory  rests,  repeated  over  and  over  again  in  many 
passages  ; everything  is  based  on  this, — take  this  away 
and  the  theory  vanishes.  Is  not  then  this  an  instance 
in  which  the  author  has  confuted  himself  ? Has  he  not 
checkmated  himself,  and  is  not  this  manifest  ? In 
this  way  we  may  understand  the  moral  qualities 


116 


EVOLUTION  BY  CO-OPERATION 


of  birds  by  the  appearance  of  the  males.  The  dusky 
cocks,  which  differ  little  from  the  hens,  have  had  quaker- 
eyed  partners,  fond  of  the  drab  colours  and  homely 
attire  ; the  pea-hens,  the  pheasants,  the  birds  of  Paradise, 
the  humming-birds  and  many  more  of  the  splendid 
species,  descend  from  vain  mothers,  allured  by  gauds 
and  garish  show.  The  argus-plieasant,  perhaps  the 
most  magnificent  of  male  birds,  is  a sad  instance  of 
the  frivolous  disposition  of  his  maternal  ancestors.  The 
crows  and  rooks  spring  from  a grave  and  clerical 
lineage.  The  cock-sparrow  argues  the  sobriety  of  taste 
that  prevailed  in  his  respectable  family. 

‘ Mr.  Darwin,  indeed,  seems  to  have  misgivings  “ lest  it 
should  appear  childish  to  attribute  any  effect  to  such 
weak  means  ; ” but  after  a little  talking  over  the  matter, 
concludes,  as  usual,  that  he  “ sees  no  good  ground  to 
doubt,”  and  so  inserts  the  article  in  his  creed ; for  a creed 
it  is,  and  continually  presented  to  us  as  such,  by  the 
established  formulary:  “I  believe.”’ 

To  finish  this  picture  with  the  last  touch,  the  author 
informs  us  that  ‘ he  would  not  attribute  all  such  sexual 
differences  to  this  agency,  for  some  of  the  peculiarities 
of  the  males  he  cannot  believe  are  attractive  to  the 
females,  particularly  the  tuft  of  hair  on  the  breast  of 
the  turkey-cock,  which  he  considers  neither  as  useful 
nor  ornamental.  But  has  the  learned  author  consulted 
the  turkey-hens  on  this  subject  ? Dc  gustibus  non 
disputandum  : the  fair  ones  may  admire  a strong  tuft  of 


SELECTION 


117 


hair  on  their  husband’s  breasts  ; who  knows  ? Philoso- 
phers and  turkey-hens  cannot  be  supposed  always  to 
see  matters  from  one  and  the  same  point  of  view.’ 

The  Darwinian  muddle  which  has  arisen  through 
transferring  organismal  choice  into  a phantastic  outside 
agency  (although  Darwin  reluctantly  concedes  that 
‘ a little  dose  of  judgment  or  reason  often  comes 
into  play  even  with  animals  low  in  the  scale  of  nature  ’ ) 
is  brought  home  forcibly  in  the  following  lines : 
‘ However,  in  the  passage  before  us  we  see  it  acknow- 
ledged that  Natural  Selection  has  “ not  been  brought 
into  play,”  an  expression  which,  when  closely  examined, 
means  really  that  those  animals  have  not  begun 
to  change  themselves.  Their  limbs  have  not  been 
“ plastic  ” — a favourite  little  word  with  the  author, 
in  which  is  slyly  condensed  the  power  of  self-creation 
— and  so  they  have  not  brought  Natural  Selection  into 
play.’ 

The  anonymous  author  finishes  his  remarks  on  this 
part  of  his  subject  with  the  following  droll  observa- 
tion : ‘ The  goose  seems  to  have  a singularly  inflexible 

organisation.  Natural  Selection,  then,  does  not  seem  to 
be  able  to  change  a goose.  That  wise  animal  (for  so  we 
must  esteem  it)  thinks  it  better  to  adhere  to  a con- 
servative policy,  and  to  be  satisfied  with  things  as  they 
are,  having  no  desire  to  lapse  into  a giraffe,  a crab,  an 
elephant,  or  a philosopher.’ 

The  eagerness  of  the  anonymous  author  to  do  justice 


118 


EVOLUTION  BY  CO-OPERATION 


where  justice  is  clue  shows  itself  in  his  references  to 
Lamarck  and  to  Eobert  Chambers. 

Of  the  ‘ Vestiges  ’ he  says  : ‘ It  met  with  great  success, 
soon  became  a popular  book,  and  is  still  enjoying  a 
measure  of  popularity.  This  is  to  be  attributed  in  part 
to  the  pleasant  style  of  its  composition,  and  to  the  lucid 
and  intelligible  tone  of  the  statements  it  contains.  It  is 
an  easy  book  to  read,  and  the  novelty  of  its  subject  made 
it  an  entertaining  one.  The  scientific  world  is  disposed 
to  speak  slightingly  of  the  work  as  deficient  in  information, 
but  the  author  does  not  seem  to  put  forth  the  pretensions 
of  a man  of  science,  and  he  offers  his  statements  simply 
as  the  result  of  his  reading — he  gathers  from  other  writers 
his  materials,  and  proposes  his  deductions  on  them  with 
simplicity  and  modesty.  There  may  be  mistakes  in  the 
statements,  or  a deficiency  of  knowledge  may  here  and 
there  betray  itself,  but  on  the  whole  the  book  may  be 
considered  the  least  offensive  of  any  that  have  yet  appeared 
to  advocate  the  theory  of  Transmutation.’ 

‘ Mr.  Darwin  considers  the  author  of  “ Vestiges  ” as  his 
pioneer,  and  the  husbandman  who  has  prepared  the  soil 
for  the  Darwinian  harvest.  But  it  is  open  to  suspicion, 
and  by  some  persons  asserted,  that  we  owe  “ The  Origin  of 
Species  ” to  the  influence  which  the  “ Vestiges  ” exercised 
on  Mr.  Darwin’s  mind  : and  that  in  the  general  argument 
of  that  publication  Mr.  Darwin  found  suggestions  for  a 
more  perfect  system  of  Transmutation,  which  it  has  been 
his  business  to  elaborate.’ 


SELECTION 


119 


As  regards  the  place  of  habits  in  Darwin’s  system, 
our  anonymous  author’s  sarcastic  remarks  are  again  well 
worth  reading.  He  refers  to  the  following  statement 
of  Darwin’s  : ‘ When  cases  of  diversified  and  changed 
habits  occur,  it  would  be  easy  for  Natural  Selection  to  fit 
the  animal  for  its  changed  habits,  or  exclusively  for  one  of 
its  several  different  habits.  But  it  is  difficult  to  tell,  and 
immaterial  for  us,  whether  habits  generally  change  first, 
and  structure  afterwards  ; or  whether  slight  modifications 
of  structure  lead  to  changed  habits ; both  probably  often 
change  almost  simultaneously.’ 

These  are  his  strictures  : ‘ We  quite  agree  with  the 
author  in  acknowledging  the  difficulty  of  this  question, 
but  that  it  is  immaterial  we  cannot  at  all  concede.  If 
transformations  are  to  take  place  in  Nature,  and 
animals  are  to  become  new  creatures,  it  must  be  a very 
important  point  to  determine  wdiether  the  change  first 
takes  place  in  the  structure  of  the  animal  or  in  its  habits. 
If  a land-animal  is  about  to  turn  into  a fish,  or  a fish  into 
a land-animal,  or  if  a wingless  animal  is  about  to  assume 
wings  (all  cases  considered  quite  possible  in  the  Theory, 
if  indeed  they  are  not,  more  properly  speaking,  historical 
facts),  it  must  be  deeply  interesting  to  know  wdiether  the 
inclination  to  change  precedes  the  altered  structure,  or 
vice  versa. 

‘ Perhaps  this  interesting  question  has  been  already 
settled  for  us  by  Shakespeare,  vrho,  as  he  rarely  missed 
any  subject,  seems  not  to  have  overlooked  the  possibilities 


120 


EVOLUTION  BY  CO-OPERATION 


of  Natural  Selection.  In  the  “ Midsummer  Night’s 
Dream  ” he  first  gives  the  ass’s  head  to  Bottom,  and  then 
represents  Bottom  as  manifesting  asinine  inclinations. 
“ Methinks  I have  a great  desire  for  a pottle  of  hay; 
good  hay,  sweet  hay  hath  no  fellow.”  The  rule  then,  after 
all,  seems  to  be  that  when  a man  is  turned  into  an  ass  he 
then  begins  to  have  asinine  thoughts.  In  other  words, 
the  structure  precedes  the  habit.’ 

Bearing  on  the  principle  of  reciprocal  differentiation, 
the  author  rightly  remarks  : ‘ Why  one  cell  should  absorb  ; 
why  another,  that  seems  exactly  to  resemble  it,  should 
assimilate  ; why  a third  should  secrete  ; why  a fourth 
should  prepare  the  reproductive  germs  ; and  why,  of  two 
germs  that  seem  exactly  similar,  one  should  be  developed 
into  the  meanest  zoophyte,  and  another  into  the  complex 
fabric  of  man, — are  questions  that  physiology  is  not 
likely  ever  to  answer.’ 

We  are  also  told  that  ‘ Natural  Selection  ’ may  be 
defined  to  be  ‘ the  result  of  destruction,’  and  further 
that  as  regards  the  presence  of  many  special  structures 
‘ there  must  have  been  something  more  than  inheritance 
at  work,  for  inheritance  can  neither  add  nor  leave  out  a 
part  of  the  body.’ 

The  discrepancy  of  Darwin’s  raising  in  the  face  of 
his  own  theory  the  question,  ‘ How  do  we  know  that  it 
would  be  any  advantage  for  the  lower  forms  to  be  more 
highly  organised^?  ’ is  well  perceived  by  our  author,  who 
retorts  that  ‘ from  him  this  question  is  most  strange  : 


SELECTION 


121 


for  the  answer  would  be  that  in  this  Theory  the  benefit 
of  an  advancing  change  would  be  everything.’  If  a form 
is  low  in  the  scale  of  organisation,  Mr.  Darwin  takes  it 
for  granted,  in  his  scheme  of  Natural  Selection,  that  it 
would  be  an  advantage  to  promote  it  into  one  of  superior 
grade  : on  this  the  whole  theory  of  metamorphosis  pro- 
ceeds ; how  then  can  he  thus  turn  round  upon  us,  and  ask 
what  advantage  it  would  be  for  an  earthworm  to  be 
highly  organised  ? 

‘ We  cannot  do  better  than  to  finish  these  remarks  with 
Mr.  Darwin’s  own  words,  self-immolating  as  they  are  to 
the  learned  gentleman ; “ Who  can  pretend  that  he  knows 
the  Natural  History  of  any  organic  being  sufficiently  well 
to  say  whether  any  particular  change  would  be  to  its 
advantage  ? ” Who  can  write  so  effectually  against 
Mr.  Darwin  as  Mr.  Darwin  himself  ? And  who,  when 
facing  Nature,  in  a candid  spirit  and  free  from  the  conta- 
gion of  paradox,  can  so  acutely  observe  and  so  ably  apply 
the  observations  he  has  made  ? 

* Yet  this  is  the  very  thing  which  Mr.  Darwin  has 
asserted  again  and  again  in  every  chapter,  that  it  has  been 
for  the  advantage  of  the  lower  animals  that  they  should 
be  changed,  and,  moreover,  he  predicts  that  this  system  of 
mutation  will  go  on  amongst  them  till  it  reaches  perfection. 

‘Here,  then,  is  the  contradiction  : Mr.  Darwin  meets  the 
objection  of  the  lower  animals  remaining  as  yet  unchanged 
by  telling  us  it  would  not  be  to  their  advantage  that  they 
should  be  changed  ; and  yet  he  predicts  that  “ each  creature 


122 


EVOLUTION  BY  CO-OPERATION 


will  tend  to  become  more  and  more  improved  in  relation 
to  its  condition  of  life.”  In  short,  he  writes  for  and 
against  the  advance  of  the  lower  animals  ; and  his  own 
confutation  of  himself  is  unanswerable.  In  the  meanwhile 
we  may  rest  satisfied  that  the  Theory  is  visibly  confuted 
by  the  existence  of  innumerable  lower  forms  remaining 
unchanged,  and  by  the  palpable  fact  that  the  lower 
forms  have  not  been  exterminated  by  the  higher.  This 
may  be  noticed  anywhere  ; moreover,  we  see  numbers 
of  species  closely  allied  to  one  another  living  together, 
that  is,  occupying  the  same  regions,  without  the  slightest 
tendency  to  this  imaginary  extermination.  The  horse, 
it  will  be  said,  is  an  improvement  on  the  ass  ; these 
creatures  are  so  nearly  allied  that  a mixed  progeny  can 
be  produced  between  them,  and  yet  there  is  no  tendency 
in  the  horse  to  exterminate  the  ass  in  a state  of  nature  ; 
and  so  in  thousands  of  other  instances.  If  indeed  we 
could  bring  ourselves  to  doubt  that  which  is  so  evident, 
Mr.  Darwin’s  perplexity  of  reasoning  and  his  contra- 
dictions on  this  topic  would  be  amply  sufficient  to  convince 
us  of  the  real  state  of  the  case.  And  here,  to  dismiss  this 
subject  of  Natural  Selection  by  extermination,  this  need 
only  be  added  to  foregoing  remarks — “ that  this  operation 
imagined  by  Mr.  Darwin  is  merely  an  expedient  to  account 
for  the  total  want  of  intermediate  links,  necessary  to 
connect  the  transformation  of  one  animal  into  another.”  ’ 
My  readers  will  realise  how  confusion  in  the  theory 
of  evolution  as  here  portrayed  was  bound  to  arise, 


SELECTION 


123 


failing  a proper  orientation  on  matters  of  nutrition  and 
of  economics. 

The  anonymous  author  continues  his  brilliant  criticism 
of  the  Natural  Selection  theory  thus  : 

‘ In  bidding  farewell,  then,  to  this  subject,  we  have 
examined  Natural  Selection  with  sufficient  care  to  under- 
stand that  it  represents  nothing,  and  is  a mere  play  of 
words.  The  only  real  part  of  the  Theory  is  Accidental 
Change  and  Extermination.  There  is  no  other  agency. 
There  is  nothing  that  can  select  ; no  power,  intellect,  or 
existence  of  any  sort,  that  can  make  any  choice,  or 
discriminate  betwTeen  the  useful  and  the  inexpedient. 

‘ The  animal  is  represented  as  changing  its  organisation 
spontaneously,  and  by  slow  degrees  ; the  animal  that 
does  not  change  is  exterminated.  This  is  the  whole 
machinery  by  which  organised  beings  have  been  produced. 
The  term  “ Natural  Selection  ” therefore  is  superfluous, 
it  is  an  illusion,  an  allegorical  phantasy  devoid  of  real 
meaning,  and  representing  no  fact.  It  ought  to  be  entirely 
banished  from  the  system,  and  from  the  title-page  of 
Mr.  Darwin’s  book,  where  it  is  offered  as  an  alternative  : 
“ Origin  of  Species,  by  means  of  Natural  Selection ; or 
the  Preservation  of  Favoured  Races  in  the  Struggle  for 
Life.”  That  is,  we  may  take  our  choice  between  these 
two  statements,  which  are  proposed  as  equivalent.  But 
the  first  is  a misrepresentation,  for  species  cannot  derive 
their  origin  from  that  which  has  no  real  existence ; and 
the  second  contains  two  errors  : 1 . “ The  favoured  races  ” ; 


124 


EVOLUTION  BY  CO-OPERATION 


favoured  by  whom,  or  by  what  ? This  expression  implies 
selection  and  has  a reference  to  the  first  part  of  the  title. 
2.  “ The  Struggle  for  Life  ” is  a metaphor,  which  Mr. 
Darwin  cannot  pretend  is  to  be  taken  literally.  Thus  the 
title  of  the  book  has  three  metaphorical  expressions,  as  an 
earnest  of  all  that  was  to  follow. 

‘ “ The  production  of  species  by  accident  and  exter- 
mination ” would  have  expressed  more  correctly  and 
truthfully  the  gist  of  the  Treatise. 

‘ Mr.  Darwin  has  himself  told  us  that  Natural  Selection 
is  a metaphor,  and  yet  on  this  basis  has  he  argued  all 
through  his  book,  without  even  once  availing  himself  of 
that  definition  which  he  assures  us  conveys  the  real  mean- 
ing of  the  term.  That  there  has  been  an  object  in  this 
we  can  scarcely  doubt ; it  has  been  intended  to  induce  the 
reader,  by  continual  usage  of  the  words,  to  suppose  that 
there  is  really  a power  of  selection  and  of  choice  in  this 
dispensation  of  metamorphoses.  Very  numerous  are  the 
passages  in  which  Natural  Selection  is  personified,  and 
represented  as  a vigilant  inspector  and  improver  of  the 
forms  of  life,  and  as  endowed  with  transcendent  skill 
and  wisdom  in  her  multiplied  operations.  Several  of  these 
passages  the  reader  has  seen,  and  that  this  inexcusable 
language  has  produced  its  effect  on  the  converts  to  the 
system  is  more  than  probable.’ 

Finally  our  anonymous  critic  alludes  to  another 
instance  of  ‘ the  excellent  foppery  of  the  world,’  which 
consists  in  the  habit  of  denouncing  the  constitution  of 


SELECTION 


125 


the  universe  rather  than  pleading  guilty  to  the  charge  of 
surfeit  and  of  biological  criminality.  He  says  : ‘ When  a 
leopard  destroys  an  antelope,  or  a wolf  worries  an  innocent 
lamb,  or  a tiger  dines  on  a wise  and  virtuous  man,  this  may 
be  abhorrent  to  our  feelings  of  fitness — except  when  ive 
perpetrate  the  like  crimes  ourselves.  When  we  sit  down  to 
a quarter  of  lamb,  with  mint  sauce,  we  never  disturb 
ourselves  about  the  conscience  of  the  grim  butcher  who  is 
making  a sanguinary  fortune  by  our  Cyclopean  appetites. 
It  is  not  at  all  abhorrent  to  our  ideas  of  fitness  to  do 
that  ourselves  which  we  hear  of  with  such  horror  when 
perpetrated  by  a wolf  or  a lion.  If  a dog  eats  a sheep 
we  have  him  hanged  forthwith  ; but  if  a thousand  sheep 
are  cut  up  next  morning  and  sold  in  the  London  market, 
we  think  it  a most  encouraging  circumstance,  and  a 
blessed  proof  of  the  prosperity  of  the  landed  interest.’ 

The  Roman  jurists  did  not  trouble  to  invent  a casuis- 
try, as  did  Aristotle,  for  the  justification  of  their  predaceous 
exploitation  of  other  nations — ‘ cum  in  servum  omnia 
liceant.’  They  frankly  admitted  that  it  was  founded 
upon  force  and  that  it  was  ‘ contrary  to  Nature.’  The 
Romans  were  a ‘ practical  ’ people.  Modern  Science,  too, 
tends  to  become  ‘ practical,’  as  practical  as  the  Science 
of  the  days  of  Juvenal.  It  has  no  longer  any  ‘ enemies,’ 
and  there  is  ‘ nourishment  ’ in  abundance.  Hence  it 
has  become  hypertrophied  in  parts  and  atrophied  in 
others.  Like  some  top-heavy  bird,  it  is  in  danger  of 
becoming  flightless. 


CHAPTER  III 


DIGESTIVE  TRANSFORMATION 

‘ Medical  science  is  to-day  overweighted  by  the  accumulation  of 
a vast  array  of  more  or  less  crude  and  isolated  facts.  What  we  need 
is  the  illuminating  generalisation,  the  daring  hypothesis  to  co-ordinate 
facts  hitherto  out  of  relation  with  each  other,  to  give  perchance  to 
science  a new  organon,  to  light  the  way  to  fresh  fields  of  inquiry  and 
discovery.’ — (De.  J.  A.  Lindsay,  M.A.,  M.D.) 

‘ But,  after  the  manner  of  brutes  looking  always  downwards,  and 
bowed  towards  earth  and  their  tables,  they  live  feeding  and  coupling.’  . . . 

‘ And,  even  to  this  day,  such  as  denominate  themselves  from  the 
Pythagorean  manner  of  life  appear  to  be  somehow  eminent  beyond 
others.’ — (Plato.) 

Digestive  transformation  is  an  expression  used  by 
medical  Darwinists  which  now  requires  correction. 
In  a suggestive  little  volume,  ‘ The  Gospel  according 
to  Darwin,’  Dr.  Woods  Hutchinson  tells  us  : ‘ When  we 
turn  to  the  higher  forms  of  being,  the  dependence  of 
life  upon  precedent  death  is  so  self-evident  as  to  have 
been  formulated  into  a truism.  That  the  grass  must  die 
that  sheep  may  live,  and  that  sheep  must  die  that  man 
may  live,  are  facts  as  familiar  as  the  multiplication-table. 
If  the  command,  “ Thou  shalt  not  kill,”  were  to  be 
interpreted  to  extend  to  our  animal  cousins  and  our 


DIGESTIVE  TRANSFORMATION 


127 


vegetable  ancestors,  it  might  as  well  read  at  once, 
“ Thou  shalt  starve.” 

‘ Without  this  power  of  the  lower  life  to  forward  the 
higher  life  by  dying,  progress  of  any  sort  would  be 
absolutely  impossible.  Even  when  we  reach  the  human 
stage,  where  no  such  direct  digestive  transformation  into 
higher  forms  is  possible,  the  same  necessity  is  still 
apparent.’ 

Now,  of  course,  death  has  its  place  in  Nature  ; but 
if  it  is  well  that  even  in  their  death  organisms  should  be 
bio-economically  useful,  how  much  more  may  we  normally 
expect  them  to  be  useful  during  life  ! It  is  by  work,  and 
not  by  death,  that  organisms  normally  forward  their  own 
life  interests  and  those  of  others.  It  is  by  production 
that  they  justify  their  existence  (as  against  all  depraved 
types),  avoid  undue  competition,  and  purchase  mutual 
evolution.  Failing  this  production,  various  means  of 
competition  have  to  be  resorted  to.  When  they  resort 
to  depredation  or  begin  to  devour  each  other  we  may 
say  that  the  ordinary  resources  of  organic  ‘ civilisation  ’ 
have  already  been  rejected,  and  that  all  manner  of 
criminality  may  now  be  expected.  The  digestive  trans- 
formation to  which  this  gives  rise  is  not  of  a progressive 
or  desirable  character,  and,  as  I have  shoAvn,  it  has  not 
the  approval  of  Nature,  any  more  than  has  perpetual 
in- breeding. 

The  alternative  of  waste  and  starvation  in  Nature 
as  well  as  in  human  society  is  not  depredation,  but 


128 


EVOLUTION  BY  CO-OPERATION 


service.  When  faced  by  the  good  effects  of  pro- 
ductive and  cross-feeding  habits,  however,  Darwinists 
are  nonplussed.  Without  competition,  they  tell  us, 
there  is  no  natural  selection.  Yet  we  have  stability 
and  efficiency  in  the  absence  of  Darwinian  compe- 
tition— given  at  least  cross-feeding.  Thus  P.  W. 
Hutton,  F.K.S.,  &c.,  tells  us  that  ‘ In  the  Pleistocene  the 
African  elephant  lived  in  South  Europe  with  other  species, 
some  of  which  belonged  to  the  Indian  type;  and  at  the 
close  of  the  Pleistocene,  the  mammoth,  which  had  the 
most  specialised  teeth  of  any,  became  extinct.  As  these 
two  forms  were  competing  for  so  long  a time,  without 
either  of  them  gaining  any  advantage,  we  cannot  suppose 
that  the  two  living  species  of  elephant  owe  their  pre- 
servation to  the  superior  pattern  of  their  molar  teeth. 
The  fact  is  that  one  pattern  is  as  useful  as  the  other, 
neither  more  nor  less  ; and,  as  no  advantage  is  gained 
by  having  different  patterns,  they  cannot  have  been 
developed  by  Natural  Selection.’ 

It  is  true,  of  course,  that  carnivorism  has  its  place  in 
the  economy  of  Nature.  The  destructive  animals,  as 
Chambers  has  it?  ‘ seem  to  bear  a relation  to  those  upon 
which  they  are  destined  to  prey,  and  to  be  a necessary 
accompaniment  to  them.’  They  are  ‘ developed  con- 
temporaneously with  the  weaker  tribes,  the  fertility  of 
which  would  otherwise  produce  complete  anarchy.’  It 
is  necessary  to  add,  however,  that  those  weaker  tribes 
frequently  are  apt  to  obtain  their  plant-food  feloniously 


DIGESTIVE  TRANSFORMATION 


129 


and  to  become  ‘ Pflanzen-Raubtiere  ’ (predaceous  plant  - 
feeders),  and  that  the  numerical  anarchy  they  produce  is 
thus  preceded  by  a nutritive  (physiological  and  bio- 
economic)  anarchy.  Once  such  anarchy  has  recruited 
itself  from  their  ranks,  it  is  not  a far  cry  to  the  develop- 
ment of  pure  carnivorism  from  the  same  ranks. 

Primarily,  then,  an  outrage  is  committed  on  the 
plant-kingdom,  that  faithful  though  long-suffering  com- 
plement of  the  animal.  If  this  outrage  is — providentially, 
as  the  older  writers  thought — checked  by  carnivorism, 
if  the  cross-feeders  are  thus  protected  from  that  anarchy 
to  which  their  own  inordinate  appetite  would  tend,  it  is 
only  meet  that  they  should  pay  the  penalty  for  their 
transgression. 

But  this  is  not  the  same  as  saying  that  the  lending 
of  their  diseased  and  overfed  bodies  to  the  ‘ digestive 
transformation  ’ of  those  scavengers  of  still  more  depraved 
appetites  (who  otherwise  devour  much  of  the  offal  of 
life  and  suffer  the  consequences  of  perpetual  in-feeding) 
is  an  indispensable  factor  of  progressive  evolution. 

" J"The  value  of  carnivorism  does  not  consist  in  ‘ digestive 
transformation.’  Digestive  transformation  such  as  under- 
stood by  Dr.  Woods  Hutchinson  is  not  the  kind  of  trans- 
formation that  I would  advise  my  readers  to  rely  upon. 
We  may  take  it,  however,  from  the  learned  Doctor  that 
digestion  has  to  play  a great  part  in  evolution.  What 
part  exactly  it  does  play,  however,  is,  as  Mr.  Kipling 
would  say,  ‘ another  story.’ 


130 


EVOLUTION  BY  CO-OPERATION 


As  regards  digestive  transformation  we  must  take  to 
heart  Nietzsche’s  saying  : ‘ Nicht  fort  sondern  hinauf 
sollt  ihr  euch  pflanzen.’ 

It  is  fair  to  add  that  there  are  those  among  medical 
men  who  preserve  an  open  mind  as  regards  digestive 
transformation.  Thus  Dr.  James  Alexander  Lindsay, 
who  considers  the  idea  of  vegetarianism  as  one  ‘ worth 
thinking  over,’  says  that  ‘ the  phenomena  of  digestion 
will  appeal  to  our  intellect  and  imagination  very 
differently  according  as  we  regard  them  as  ultimate 
and  final  facts,  or  as  part  of  an  evolutionary  process.’ 1 

1 Bradshaw  Lecture  on  Darwinism  and  Medicine,  Brit.  Med. 
Journal,  Nov.  6,  1909. 


CHAPTER  IV 


IS  NATURE  NON-MORAL  ? 

‘ The  moral  order  is  a continuous  line  from  the  beginning.’ — 
Henry  Drummond. 

‘ We  must  interpret  the  less  developed  by  the  more  developed.’— 
Prof.  W.  R.  Sorley. 

‘ Lo  ! by  me  [wisdom]  shall  thy  days  be  multiplied  and  years  of 
life  be  added  unto  thee.’ — King  Solomon. 

The  causal  bond  between  economic  transgression  and 
pathological  developments,  upon  which  I have  throughout 
insisted,  will  of  course  appear  novel  to  many  readers. 
They  must  consider,  however,  that  there  is  action  and 
reaction  throughout  the  web  of  correlations.  Organisms 
do  not  always  act  and  react  upon  each  other  to  their  own 
or  the  general  good.  Nor  are  the  reactions  always  rapid, 
immediate  and  direct.  To  live  up  to  high  bio-economic 
duties,  no  doubt,  does  not  always  seem  to  be  following 
lines  of  least  resistance.  ‘ Sweet  are  the  waters  of 
stealth.’  Bad  habits,  moreover,  are  only  gradually 
assumed,  and  the  natural  checks  following  in  their 
wake  take  time  to  mature.  In  this  way  evil  may 


132 


EVOLUTION  BY  CO-OPERATION 


flourish  for  a time,  though  the  mills  of  God  are  slowly 
but  surely  grinding.  A kind  of  scientific  obscurant- 
ism is  opposed  to  this  view  of  ‘ morality  in  nature.’ 
Older  writers  admitted  the  possibility  of  ‘ a kind  of 
blemish  ’ otherwise  irreconcilable  -with  ‘ that  idea  of 
perfection  which  a general  view  of  Nature  irresistibly 
attributes  to  its  author’  (Chambers).  Eecent  writers 
deny  biological  evil  altogether  in  deference  to  the  supposed 
omnipotence  of  Natural  Selection.  Credo  quia  impossibile 
est  still  holds  sway  ; ‘ credo,’  moreover,  relieves  one  of  the 
inconvenient  necessity  of  thinking. 

The  goddess  who  ‘ selects,’  knowing  only  selfish 
expediency,  of  course,  can  hardly  be  said  to  be  ‘ moral,’ 
and  Nature  therefore  is  said  to  be  non-moral  ! 1 

But  why  should  Nature  not  be  credited  with  a morality 
which  is  not  the  same  as,  though  analogous  to,  human  mor- 
ality, if  she  is  credited  with  the  attribute  of  Selection — not 
the  same  as,  though  analogous  to,  human  Selection  ? Evi- 
dence of  the  former  is  at  any  rate  more  tangible  than  evi- 
dence of  the  latter,  and  belief  in  it  requires  less  straining  of 
concepts  than  belief  in  Selection. 

All  we  can  say  is  that  there  are  various  degrees  of 
morality,  and  that  the  lower  types,  though  they  can  rarely 
(or  not  at  all)  live  up  to  the  standard  of  the  higher — and 


1 Evolution  on  this  view  is  supposed  to  be  a teleological  event 
following  as  a result  of  laws  wholly  mechanical — ‘ a truth  that  ought 
to  be  patent  since  the  discovery  [?]  of  Natural  Selection.’ — Hugh 
S.  Elliot  in  Science  Progress,  Jan.  1913. 


IS  NATURE  NON-MORAL  ? 


133 


in  precisely  so  far  as  they  cannot  as  yet  live  up  to  a higher 
standard  of  morality  must  be  content  to  be  the  ‘ lower  ’• — 
have  to  conform  to  a certain  bio-economic  standard  of 
morality,  failing  which  they  suffer  the  penalty  of  degenera- 
tion and  of  general  decline. 

Many  of  the  lower  types  indeed  seem  to  possess  an 
appreciable  ‘ little  dose  ’ of  morality  in  addition  to  the 
‘ little  dose  ’ of  judgment  and  of  reason  conceded  to  them 
by  Darwin.  What  a fine  apprehension  of  evolutionary 
law  is  frequently  contained  in  scriptural  and  ancient 
classical  writings  ! Thus  King  Solomon  points  to  the 
example  of  the  bee  and  says,  ‘ She  is  advanced  by 
honouring  wisdom.’ 

According  to  Mr.  C.  B.  Roylance  Kent,1  ‘ social 
evolution  is  at  bottom  an  ethical  process  ; its  end  is 
the  survival  of  those  who  are  ethically  the  best,  its  aim 
not  so  much  the  survival  of  the  fittest  as  the  fitting  of 
as  many  as  possible  to  survive.’  This  view,  in  my 
opinion,  is  applicable  to  organic  as  well  as  to  human 
evolution. 


1 Fortnightly  Review,  June  1913. 


CHAPTER  V 

CORRELATIONS 


‘ The  effects  of  lessened  exercise  together  with  abundant  food  on  the 
whole  organisation  are  probably  still  more  important.’ — Dabwin. 

‘ Correlation  of  growth  ’ and  ‘ correlation  of  variation,’ 
according  to  Sir  E.  Eay  Lankester,  are  important  matters, 
though  ‘ little  has  been  added  to  our  knowledge  since 
Darwin  wrote.’1  ‘ We  know  little  more  about  it  than  the 
bare  facts  which  indicate  its  existence.  It  is,  I admit, 
a dangerous  weapon,  if  hastily  applied,  because  its  laws 
and  limitations  have  not  been  ascertained,  but  it  removes 
difficulties  and  opens  up  possibilities  which  are  of  the 
greatest  importance.’ 

The  following  are  instances  of  ‘ correlated  variation  ’ as 
cited  by  Sir  E.  Ray  Lankester  : ‘ White  sheep  and  pigs 
are  poisoned  by  certain  plants  in  then-  food,  whilst 
dark-coloured  individuals  escape  injury.  Black  pigs  in 
Virginia  eat  the  plant  called  “ paint  root”  with  impunity, 
whilst  all  other  varieties  of  pig,  when  they  eat  this 


1 Daily  Telegraph,  January  15,  1913. 


COE  RELATIONS 


135 


plant,  acquire  a disease  of  the  hoofs  which  causes  them 
to  drop  off.’ 

Obviously  we  have  here,  amongst  others,  important 
correlations  of  the  bio-economic  order,  and  I can  agree 
with  Sir  E.  Ray  Lankester  that  new  conditions  may 
ensue  by  correlation  which  cannot  be  explained  by 
‘ utility,’  except  in  so  far  as  depredation  (of  which  pigs  and 
sheep  make  themselves  guilty — ‘ Pflanzen-Raubtiere  ’) 
in  course  of  time  gives  rise  to  correlations  of  an  injurious 
kind. 

Sir  Edwin,  however,  is  not  in  the  habit  of  taking 
indispensable  bio-economic  implications  into  account  ; 
hence  he  is  entirely  mystified  by  such  phenomena,  and 
avers  that  there  are  numerous  ‘ utilities  of  an  obscure 
kind,’  among  which,  I presume,  he  would  include  the 
above. 

An  adequate  consideration  of  this  subject  shows 
that  Gresham’s  law  of  currency  holds  good  physiologically 
and  biologically.  If  physiological  currency  is  allowed  to 
deteriorate  by  improper  feeding  (resulting  in  an  under- 
adequacy of  force),  if  ‘ give  and  take  ’ are  replaced  by 
depredation  and  carnivorism,  a number  of  correlations 
incompatible  with  progressive  evolution  must  arise. 

On  Sir  Edwin’s  own  showing,  correlated  with  great 
canine  teeth  are  vast  fangs,  requiring  an  excessive  blood- 
supply,  wThich  in  turn  (in  all  probability)  reduces  that  of 
the  neighbouring  organ,  the  brain. 

The  wider  correlation  is,  that  predaceous  feeding  and 


136 


EVOLUTION  BY  CO-OPERATION 


carnivorism  eventually  produce  ‘ incredibly  and  absurdly 
small  brains  ’ in  absurdly  overgrown  bodies,  an  anomalous 
and  pathological  condition.  Such  under-adequacy  of 
force,  combined  with  a corresponding  disqualification,  in 
my  opinion  explains  the  supposedly  puzzling  cause  of  the 
extinction  of  ‘ highly-specialised  ’ monsters  of  the  past. 

In  an  article  on  ‘ From  Ape  to  Man  ’ 1 Sir  E.  Eay 
Lankester  tells  us  : ‘ Just  as  man’s  brain  is  enormously 
larger  than  that  of  the  ordinary  monkey’s,  although  his 
general  make  and  anatomy  is  closely  similar  to  theirs,  so 
we  find  that  the  rhinoceros  has  an  enormous  brain  as 
compared  with  extinct  rhinoceros-like  animals,  the  pre- 
decessors and  ancestors  of  those  now  living.  The  extinct 
titanotherium  of  the  lower  Miocene  period  managed  to 
carry  on  its  life  in  an  efficient  way  and  to  hold  its  own 
for  a considerable  period  with  a brain  which  was  only 
one-eighth  the  bulk  of  that  of  a modern  rhinoceros,  as 
did  other  animals  in  the  past  with  even  greater  bodies  and 
smaller  brains. 

‘ Descartes  and  other  philosophers  have  held  that 
there  is  a great  difference  in  the  mental  processes  of 
animals  as  compared  with  those  of  man  in  this,  namely, 
that  man  is  “ conscious,”  that  is  to  say,  conscious  of 
himself  as  “ I,”  and,  as  it  were,  looks  on  at  himself  acting 
on  and  being  acted  on  by  surrounding  existences,  whilst 
(so  it  is  assumed)  animals  have  not  this  consciousness, 


1 Daily  Telegraph,  February  12,  1913. 


CORRELATIONS 


137 


but  are  “ automata,”  going  through  all  the  processes  of 
life,  and  even  behaving  more  or  less  as  man  does  in 
similar  circumstances,  yet  without  being  “ conscious.” 
This  difference  between  man  and  animals  is  certainly  not 
so  absolute  as  it  is  sometimes  asserted  to  be.’ 

What  I maintain  is  that  on  further  examination  it 
will  be  found  that  all  normally  feeding  animals  thus 
bear  testimony  to  the  gradual  forcing  up  of  the  mental 
level  in  evolution,  and  we  may  say  that  one  very  important 
correlation  of  a proper  physiological  currency  consists  in 
a marked  gain  of  mentality. 

The  same  authority  assures  us  about  the  value  of  this 
evolutionary  increase  of  brain  thus  : ‘ In  proportion  as 
the  brain  increases  in  volume  (especially  that  part  of  it 
which  is  called  “ the  cortex  of  the  hemispheres  ”)  the 
animal  to  which  that  brain  belongs  loses,  gets  rid  of  in- 
herited mechanisms  or  instincts,  and  becomes  “ educable  ” ; 
that  is  to  say,  forms  for  itself  new  individual  brain- 
mechanisms  based  on  memorised  experience.  “ Edu- 
cability ” is  the  quality  which  distinguishes  the  brain  of 
increased  size  ’ (italics  mine). 

In  other  words,  given  the  basis  of  an  appropriate 
physiological  currency,  progressive  evolution  takes  place. 
Sir  Edwin,  without  even  attempting  to  draw  a line 
between  normal  and  abnormal  development,  continues  : 

‘ Thus  we  get  an  indication  of  “ the  reason  why  ” the 
modern  rhinoceros  has  a brain  eight  times  as  big  as  the 
titanotherium’s.  It  is  more  “ educable.”  The  ancestors 


138 


EVOLUTION  BY  CO-OPERATION 


of  our  modern  armour-plated  friend  have  been  surviving 
and  beating  their  less  “ educable  ” brothers  and  sisters 
and  cousins  through  a vast  geological  lapse  of  time  ; and 
the  brains  of  the  survivors  have  always  been  bigger,  and 
they  have  become  more  educable  and  more  educated 
until  the  race  has  culminated  in  those  models  of  “ sweet 
reasonableness,”  the  modern  rhinoceroses  ! That  is  what 
we  infer  ; we  do  not  judge  the  survivor  of  a fine  early 
Miocene  family  by  the  fury  and  annoyance  he  shows  when 
shot  at,  nor  by  the  stolid  contempt  with  which  he  treats 
mankind  at  the  Zoo.  The  same  signification — “ edu- 
cability ” — attaches  to  the  large  brain  of  the  higher 
apes  ; and  man’s  still  larger  brain  means  still  greater 
educability  and  resulting  reasonableness.’ 

Thus  what  I would  explain  on  the  lines  of  cause  and 
effect  as  a correlation  resulting  from  adequate  habits — in 
the  absence  of  which,  moreover,  such  desirable  develop- 
ments demonstrably  do  not  take  place — Sir  E.  Eay 
Lankester  explains  on  the  lines  of  ‘ Natural  Selection.’ 
As  instanced,  however,  by  the  case  of  the  elephant  in 
my  chapter  on  ‘ Digestive  Transformation,’  the  cross- 
feeding types  can  scarcely  be  said  to  be  competing  with 
one  another  in  the  Darwinian  sense  of  the  word.  And 
as  we  are  assured  that  without  competition  there  is  no 
‘ Selection,’  I fail  to  see  how  ‘ Natural  Selection  and  the 
survival  of  the  fittest  ’ should  have  led  to  this  increased 
size  and  accompanying  educability  of  the  brain. 

Nor  can  I see  how  ‘ isolation  ’ per  se  can  have  produced 


CORRELATIONS 


189 


such  happy  results.  We  have  here  instances  of  general 
stability  and  efficiency  of  a definite  physiological  and 
bio-economic  causation. 

As  regards  the  circumstances  which  led  to  the  re- 
duction in  size  of  man’s  canine  teeth  and  of  the  projection 
of  his  jaws,  Sir  E.  Eay  Lankester  tells  us,  ‘ it  is  impossible 
to  say  more  than  that  this  was  favoured  by  the  increased 
skill  of  his  hand  and  by  the  use  of  weapons,  and  probably 
was  directly  correlated  with  an  increased  growth  of  the 
brain  ’ (italics  mine).  Surely,  however,  Sir  Edwin  will 
admit,  and,  of  course,  has  in  general  terms  admitted,  that 
every  change  of  dentition  was  related  to  changes  of  feed- 
ing, which,  hence,  must  have  the  most  important  correla- 
tions in  the  developments  of  the  brain. 

The  same  must  be  said  if  it  is  true  that  ‘ Man  was,  far 
back  in  his  monkey-days,  a social  and  companion-loving 
animal,  and  the  fact  that  his  laughing  and  his  weeping 
are  accompanied  by  noise  is  due  to  the  desire  for  attention 
and  sympathy  from  his  friends.’ 

No  doubt  his  feeding  habits  and  those  of  his 
progenitors  must  have  been  of  a character  permitting 
a sufficiency  of  social  sympathy,  which  indeed  consti- 
tutes another  undeniable  correlation  of  cross-feeding 
habits. 

The  question  of  feeding  thus  becoming  more  and  more 
important,  Sir  Edwin  goes  on  : ‘It  is  not  easy  to  suggest 
how  the  reduction  in  size  of  the  canines  and  front  teeth 
and  of  the  length  of  the  jaw  could  be  of  such  advantage 


140 


EVOLUTION  BY  CO-OPERATION 


to  incipient  man  as  to  lead  to  the  survival  of  those 
individuals  in  which  these  parts  were  least  developed, 
and  so  gradually  to  the  crowding  of  the  teeth,  reduced  in 
size,  into  a jaw  of  reduced  length,  which  at  a late  stage, 
long  after  man  was  man,  and  no  ape,  produced  a bony 
chin  as  an  outgrowth.  The  nutrition  of  these  parts 
placed  in  the  head  near  the  brain,  the  great  canine  having 
so  vast  a fang  that  it  reaches  up  to  the  eye-socket,  whence 
it  is  called  the  “ eye-tooth,”  render  it  probable  that  there 
is  a relation  depending  on  nutrition  and  blood  supply 
between  them  and  that  all-important  organ  contained 
in  the  neighbouring  bony  box — the  brain.  As  the  great 
teeth  and  long  jaw  have  dwindled,  the  brain  has  increased  in 
volume,  and,  what  is  more  important,  in  activity  ’ (italics 
mine). 

It  is  clear  that  the  apparent  difficulties  of  explanation 
cannot  be  met  by  Darwinian  ideas  of  ‘ advantage,’ 
‘ fitness,’  ‘ selection,’  and  hoc  genus  omne. 

It  was  an  adequate  physiological  choice,  in  particular 
of  food,  which  has  conduced  to  an  ulterior  fitness  and 
usefulness,  the  identical  correlations  being  universally 
demonstrable.  Cuvier  already  has  shown  how  ‘ every 
organised  being  forms  a whole,  an  unique  and  perfect 
system,  the  parts  of  which  mutually  correspond,  and 
concur  in  the  same  definitive  action  by  a reciprocal 
reaction.  . . Each  part,  separately  considered,  points  out 
and  marks  all  the  others.’  It  remained  to  be  shown 
how  and  to  what  extent  the  part  played  by  a species  in 


CORRELATIONS 


141 


the  broad  Economy  of  Nature  eventually  involved  bio- 
economic  reactions  and  produced  those  changes  of 
‘ natural  gestation  ’ which  determined  its  evolution. 
It  remained  to  be  demonstrated  that  of  all  functions 
feeding  was  the  most  prominent  as  affecting  correlations. 

We  also  learn  from  Sir  Eay  Lankester  that 4 pigs  have 
a smaller  brain  in  proportion  to  their  bulk  than  monkeys,’ 
and  further  that  many  of  the  huge  reptiles  of  the  past, 
such  as  the  iguanodon,the  triceratops,  and  the  diplodocus, 

4 have  brains  of  an  incredibly  small  size,  much  smaller  in 
'proportion  to  their  bulk  than  those  of  living  reptiles,  such  as 
lizards  and  crocodiles  ’ (italics  mine).  4 The  skulls  and 
whole  skeletons  of  great  rhinoceros-like  animals — some 
of  them  ancestrally  related  to  our  living  rhinoceros — 
which  are  dug  up  in  early  tertiary  sands  and  clays,  have 
absurdly  small  brains.’  (Italics  mine.) 

The  subject  of  correlation  is  at  some  length  and  very 
ably  considered  in  that  once  famous  book,  4 The  Reign 
of  Law,’  by  the  Duke  of  Argyll.  He  says  : 4 It  is  not 
until  we  ask  ourselves  this  question  that  we  discover  what 
a deep  question  it  is — how  endless  are  the  avenues  of 
thought  and  of  inquiry  which  it  opens  up.’ 

The  author  perceives  that  one  kind  of  correlation  may 
rise  above  another.  4 Two  growths  might  be  correlated 
as  regards  each  other,  and  might  yet  be  wanting  in  any 
corresponding  correlation  of  fitness  and  of  function  towards 
outward  things  ’ (italics  mine).  4 But  the  first  of  these  two 
kinds  of  correlation  would  be  useless  without  the  last ; 


142 


EVOLUTION  BY  CO-OPERATION 


and  this  last  is  obviously  the  higher  and  more  complex 
correlation  of  the  two.  It  is  higher,  not  only  in  the  sense  of 
being  more  complex,  but  as  involving  an  idea  which  lifts 
us  at  once  from  a lower  to  a higher  region  of  thought.’ 

In  the  following  passage  we  get  almost  an  adumbration 
of  bio-economic  correlation.  ‘ Mr.  Darwin  has  not 
pointed  out  this  distinction  clearly.  Indeed,  he  does 
not  seem  to  have  had  it  in  his  view.  He  groups  under 
one  name — the  correlation  of  growth — two  classes  of 
phenomena,  which  are  indeed  always  combined  in  fact, 
but  which  are  entirely  separate  in  idea.  Correlation  of 
growth,  in  one  sense,  is  that  law  of  vital  force  which 
secures  that  any  change  in  the  shape  of  one  limb  in  an 
animal  shall  be  accompanied  by  a corresponding  change 
in  all  the  other  limbs.  Correlation  of  growth  in  the  other 
sense  is  that  adjustment  of  vital  forces  to  the  contin- 
gencies of  external  circumstance  which  secures  that  all 
the  changes  which  do  take  place  shall  be  changes  adapted 
to  the  discharge  of  new  functions — to  the  fulfilment  of 
new  conditions  of  life — to  command  over  new  sources  of 
enjoyment.’ 

I agree  with  the  Duke  of  Argyll  in  the  following,  as 
regards  mere  physical  correlation  : ‘ The  truth  is  that 
correlation  in  this  sense  is  involved  in  the  very  word 
“ growth.”  Each  part  of  every  structure  which  is  the 
result  of  growth  must  be  correlated  to  every  other  part. 
This  is  essential  to  the  very  idea  of  growth,  and  to 
the  very  idea  of  an  organism  due  to  growth.  When, 


CORRELATIONS 


148 


therefore,  Mr.  Darwin  says  that  one  of  the  laws  on 
which  variation  of  form  depends  is  correlation  of  growth, 
he  simply  says  that  variations  of  growth  depend  on 
growth — for  all  growths  must  be  correlated.’ 

‘ But,’  he  goes  on  to  say,  ‘ correlation  in  this  sense 
helps  but  a little  way  indeed  in  conceiving  the  origin  of  a 
new  species.  There  might  be  the  most  minute  and 
perfect  harmony  between  the  changes  effected  in  an 
animal  newly  born  without  those  changes  tending  even 
in  the  most  remote  degree  towards  the  establishment  of 
a new  form  of  life.  In  order  to  that  establishment  there 
must  be  another  correlation,  and  a correlation  of  a higher 
kind.  There  must  be  a correlation  between  those  changes 
and  all  the  outward  conditions  amidst  which  the  new 
form  is  to  be  placed  and  live.  If  this  correlation  fails 
the  new  form  will  die.  Yet,  so  far  as  we  can  see,  this 
kind  of  correlation  is  without  any  physical  cause.  It 
is  not  necessarily  involved,  as  the  other  kind  of  correla- 
tion is,  in  the  very  idea  of  growth.  On  the  contrary, 
it  is  not  only  entirely  separable  in  thought,  but,  as  we 
see  in  monstrosities,  it  is  sometimes  separated  in  fact. 
We  have  no  conception  of  any  force  emanating  from 
external  things  which  shall  mould  the  structure  of  an 
organism  in  harmony  with  themselves.’ 

Again  we  come  to  the  indispensable  conclusion  that 
the  mysterious  ‘ force  ’ here  referred  to,  emanating 
from  external  things  and  moulding  the  structure  of 
organisms — according  to  its  source  and  according  to 


144 


EVOLUTION  BY  CO-OPERATION 


their  use  of  it — is  nutrition.  Food  is  the  required 
‘ external  thing.’  It  is  generally  supposed  to  supply 
force,  and  at  the  present  day  a few  at  any  rate  begin 
to  reflect  on  the  adequacy  or  otherwise  of  the  various 
kinds  of  food-1  force  ’ obtainable. 

Whilst  being  an  ‘ external  thing,’  however,  by  dint  of 
its  ‘ fertilising  ’ and  hereditary  effects,  its  ‘ amphimixis  ’ 
value,  food  eventually  has  all  the  force  of  an  interior 
predisposing  and  predetermining  * force.’  Whether  an 
organism  can  truly  harmonise  itself  or  otherwise  with 
‘ external  things,’  and  with  the  surrounding  world  of 
life,  depends  on  habitual  use  or  misuse  of  ‘ force.’  With 
misuse  of  force  the  ‘ harmony  ’ (or  ‘ adaptation  ’)  may 
become  so  excessive  that  the  organism  no  longer  con- 
trols the  environment,  but  is  entirely  controlled  by 
it — a case  of  so-called  * extreme  determination.’  We 
may  take  the  ‘ harmony  ’ of  parasitic  adaptation  as  an 
instance.  We  can  also  see  how  the  matter  of  correlation 
may  indeed  become  complex  and  frequently  obscure,  in 
cases  where  a loss  of  autonomous  powers  has  caused  an 
organism  to  be  at  the  mercy  of  various  circumstances 
which,  normally,  it  might  master  quite  well.  The 
erstwhile  survival-forces  may  now  become  compounded 
with  a plurality  of  adventitious  influences. 

* It  is  this  higher  and  more  complex  correlation  which 
is  the  most  constant  and  the  most  obvious  of  all  the 
facts  of  Nature,’  says  the  Duke.  ‘ Throughout  the  whole 
range  of  Nature  the  system  of  internal  correlation  is 


CORRELATIONS 


145 


entirely  subordinate  to  the  system  of  external  correla- 
tion. Forms  or  growths  which  are  inseparably  joined 
with  each  other  in  one  group  of  animals  are  wholly 
divorced  from  each  other  in  another  group  ; whereas 
forms  which  have  correlations  adapted  to  external 
conditions  are  repeated  over  and  over  again  across  the 
widest  gaps  in  the  scale  of  natural  affinity. 

‘ If,  then,  it  be  true  that  new  species  are  created  out 
of  small  variations  in  the  form  of  old  species,  and  this  by 
way  of  natural  generation,  there  must  be  some  bond  of 
connection  which  determines  those  variations  in  a defi- 
nite direction,  and  keeps  up  the  external  correlations  pan 
passu  with  the  internal  correlations.  Natural  Selection 
can  have  no  part  in  this.  Natural  Selection  seizes  on 
these  external  correlations  w'hen  they  have  come  to  be. 
But  Natural  Selection  cannot  enter  the  secret  chambers 
of  the  womb,  and  there  shape  the  new  form  in  harmony 
with  modified  conditions  of  external  life.  How,  then, 
are  these  external  correlations  provided  for  beforehand  ? 
There  can  be  but  one  reply.  It  is  by  Utility,  not  acting 
as  a physical  cause  upon  organs  already  in  existence,  but 
acting  through  motive  as  a mental  purpose  in  contriving 
organs  before  they  have  begun  to  be.’ 

Causa  latet.  Whatever  mental  purpose  or  ‘ creative 
will  ’ there  may  be,  and  may  have  co-operated  towards 
the  results,  we  have  seen  that  there  is  a more  tangible 
force  moulding  and  predetermining  organs  and  species 
at  work  in  evolution.  It  is  a force  which  fulfils  all  the 


146 


EVOLUTION  B Y CO-OPERATION 


requirements  of  definiteness  and  of  purpose.  This  force 
is  nutrition,  seen  in  its  far-reaching  physiological  and  cor- 
related bio-economic  importance.  Let  us  first  exhaust 
the  study  of  nutrition  before  invoking  either  Providence 
or  Natural  Selection.  As  the  Duke  elsewhere  says ; 
‘ But  Science  will  continue  to  ask,  even  if  she  never  gets 
an  answer,  what  is  the  community  of  physical  cause 
which  produces  this  community  of  resulting  structure  ? ’ 

We  may  now  conclude  that  external  correlations  can 
be  satisfactorily  kept  up  pari  passu  with  internal 
correlations  only  by  a proper  discharge  of  systematic 
and  ‘ other-regarding  ’ activities,  the  indispensable  pre- 
requisite being,  in  my  view,  proper  feeding. 

Finally,  when  the  Duke  suggests  that  we  have  ‘ no 
glimmering  even  of  knowledge  as  to  the  physical  causes 
which  have  “ attuned  ” a material  organ  so  as  to  catch 
certain  ethereal  pulsations  in  the  external  world,’  I 
would  point  out  that  an  adequate  capacity  of  metabolic 
response,  based  on  adequate  feeding  habits,  is  indispensable 
to  the  ‘ attuning  ’ of  a material  organ.  One  proof  of  the 
matter  is  that,  as  our  consideration  of  parasitism  will 
show,  metabolic  deterioration  and  metabolic  abnormal- 
ities frequently  are  the  true  causes  of  the  disappearance 
of  finer  organs. 


CHAPTER  VI 


THE  SOLIDARITY  OP  ORGANIC  LIFE 

‘And  probably  it  is  an  absolutely  essential  condition  to  the 
continued  life,  in  tolerable  mutual  amity,  of  the  wild  things  of  the 
earth  that  this  spirit  [respect  of  rights]  should  govern  their  conduct. — 
Horace  Hutchinson, 

* Moral  conduct  is  nothing  less  than  social  conduct,  just  as  immoral 
conduct  is  directly  anti-social.’ — C.  B.  Roylance  Kent, 

‘ Ip  we  watch  the  wonderful  and  beautiful  division  of 
labour  among  the  cells  which  takes  place  in  even  the 
simplest  forms  of  plant  life,  must  we  not  almost  imagine 
that  some  sort  of  an  understanding  exists  between  them  ? 
That  some  sort  of  blind  instinct  of  devotion  or  loyalty 
to  the  mass  accompanies  the  action  of  one  group 
of  cells  in  burying  themselves  in  the  ground,  away 
from  the  light,  the  warmth,  the  dew,  of  another  in 
flattening  themselves  out  into  leaves,  all  lungs  and 
stomach,  and  of  another  in  shrinking  down  into  the 
woody  fibre  of  the  stem  or  petrifying  themselves  into 
its  siliceous  coating  ? In  one  sense,  the  relation  is  on  a 
purely  mercantile  basis ; each  group  renounces  a part 
of  its  birthright  in  order  to  render  certain  services 


148 


EVOLUTION  BY  CO-OPERATION 


to  the  plant-republic,  which  in  return  supplies  it 
with  food,  water,  air,  or  protection,  as  the  case  may 
be.  And  yet  it  is  hard  to  rid  ourselves  of  the  idea 
that  there  must  be  some  sort  of  esprit  de  corps, 
some  dim  sense  of  solidarity  amongst  them ; at  all 
events,  even  if  we  are  not  permitted  to  credit  them 
with  kindly  intentions  or  with  affectionate  senti- 
ments, yet  it  cannot  be  denied  that  their  actions 
possess  these  qualities  in  a high  degree.  In  the  which 
they  are  decidedly  superior  to  many  professed  philan- 
thropists and  reformers  among  their  descendants  of 
the  present  day.  (Italics  mine.) 

‘ Nor  is  the  service  rendered  by  any  means  always 
consistent  with  the  welfare  of  the  individual  cell ; in 
many  cases  it  is  exactly  the  reverse,  and  it  literally 
“ lays  down  its  life  for  its  friends  ” and  performs  its 
chief  function  by  dying. 

‘ We  cannot  deny  them  the  martyr’s  death,  or  what 
is  more  difficult,  the  martyr’s  life,  though  we  may  the 
martyr’s  crown.  The  same  is  true  of  the  cells  of  the 
animal  organism,  including  those  of  our  own  bodies.  A 
beautiful  illustration  of  apparent  devotion  is  furnished 
by  the  white  cells  of  our  blood,  the  leucocytes,  whose 
principal  function  appears  to  be  a protection  of  the  body 
against  all  noxious  germs  or  substances  which  penetrate 
its  tissues.  This  they  do  by  hurling  themselves  upon  the 
intruder,  regardless  of  whether  they  destroy,  or  are 
destroyed  by  him,  and  either  overwhelm  him  by  their 


THE  SOLIDARITY  OF  ORGANIC  LIFE 


149 


numbers  or,  failing  this,  imbed  him  in  their  dead  bodies, 
so  that  he  may  be  swept  out  of  the  system  -without  being 
able  to  attack  the  other  tissues.  No  enemy  can  enter 
the  fortress  save  over  their  lifeless  corpses.  And  the 
singular  thing  about  it  is  that  they  are  in  no  -way  directly 
connected  with  the  fixed  cells  of  the  body,  or  under  the 
control  of  the  central  nervous  system. 

‘ They  are  a band  of  free-lances  ranging  up  and  down 
the  blood  channels,  who  receive  from  the  body  their 
bread  and  salt,  and  in  return  are  ready  to  die  in  the  last 
ditch  in  its  defence. 

‘ The  complete  individuals  also  of  most  forms  of  plant- 
life  display  a decided  tendency  to  group  themselves 
together  in  clumps,  in  patches,  and  in  masses.  Nor  is 
this  due  entirely  or  even  mainly  to  direct  propagation,  or 
peculiarly  favourable  soil  or  aspect,  but  they  actually 
flourish  better  under  certain  degrees  of  mutual  pressure 
[italics  mine].  Our  grasses  and  grains,  for  instance, 
cannot  reach  their  highest  development  except  in  masses. 
The  huge  ear  and  priceless  berry  of  the  wheat  would  be 
impossible  were  it  not  for  the  support  afforded  to  its 
slender  stalk  by  its  fellows  in  the  golden  billows  of  the 
wheat-fields. 

‘ The  towering  stature  and  spire-like  erectness  of  the 
lordly  pine  can  be  attained  only  shoulder  to  shoulder  with 
its  brethren  in  the  serried  ranks  of  the  dense  forest. 
Alone  it  dare  not  brave  the  winds  of  heaven  to  half  that 
height. 


150 


EVOLUTION  BY  CO-OPERATION 


‘Nor  is  it  solely  between  cells  of  the  same  plant  or 
plants  of  the  same  species  that  relations  of  mutual 
advantage  exist.  It  has  been  demonstrated  of  late  that 
almost  all  the  classes  of  higher  plants  depend  for  their 
very  existence  upon  the  existence  of  swarms  of  bacteria 
in  the  soil,  which  change  the  nitrogen  of  the  soil,  of  the 
air,  into  ammonia  and  nitrates,  in  which  form  alone  it 
can  be  absorbed  by  the  roots  of  grasses  and  herbs.  Simply 
destroy  the  bacteria  and  moulds  in  any  given  patch  of 
soil  by  heating  it,  and  plants  will  refuse  to  grow  in  it.  In 
most  cases,  of  course,  this  relation  is  a mere  geographical 
one,  an  accidental  co-existence  in  the  same  soil-bed,  but 
in  others  it  is  so  definite  and  intimate  that  a term  has 
been  coined  to  express  it — “ symbiosis  ” or  “ mutualism.” 

‘ Common  clover,  for  instance,  is  largely  dependent 
for  its  nourishment  upon  the  abundance  of  tiny, 
apparently  parasitic  organisms  which  attach  themselves 
to  its  rootlets,  known  as  “ root  knots,”  which  absorb 
nitrogen  from  the  air  and  elaborate  it  for  the  use  of  the 
plant.  Hence  its  peculiar  power,  so  highly  prized  by  the 
farmer,  of  not  only  not  impoverishing  hut  actually  enriching 
the  soil  in  which  it  grows  [italics  mine]. 

‘ A similar  service  is  rendered  by  the  moulds  which 
form  upon  the  roots  of  oaks  and  ashes  in  certain  soils. 

‘ In  the  plant-world,  at  least,  there  is  no  antagonism 
between  “ the  higher  life  ” and  the  lower ; in  fact, 
the  former  absolutely  depends  upon  the  latter.  It 
would,  of  course,  be  absurd  to  claim  that  any  feeling 


THE  SOLIDARITY  OF  ORGANIC  LIFE 


151 


of  affection  or  conscious  purpose  was  present  in,  or 
prompted  by,  these  mutual  relations  among  vegetable 
cells,  but  still  it  seems  hard  to  imagine  its  occurring  with 
such  tremendous  frequence  and  constancy  without  some 
blind  instinct  of  combination,  some  dim  sense  of  soli- 
darity, on  the  part  of  one  or  both  groups  [italics  mine]. 

‘ My  main  object  in  dwelling  upon  it  is  simply  to  call 
attention  to  the  fact  that  combination  is  as  essential  and 
important  a law  of  Nature  as  antagonism,  friendly  co- 
operation as  hostility. 

‘ “ Live  and  let  live  ” is  as  necessary  a part  of  the 
struggle  for  existence  as  “ war  to  the  knife.”  ’ 

The  above  passages  are  taken  from  Dr.  Woods 
Hutchinson’s  ‘ The  Gospel  according  to  Darwin.’  With 
the  author’s  conclusions  on  these  matters,  needless  to  say, 
I have  little  fault  to  find,  except  that  I would  emphasise 
the  importance  of  ‘ live  and  let  live  ’ throughout  as  the 
true  method  of  evolution,  compared  with  which  4 war 
to  the  knife  ’ occupies  only  a very  subordinate  position. 
For  further  detailed  information  concerning  mutual  aid 
and  altruism  in  Nature,  I would  refer  the  reader  to 
Kropotkin’s  4 Mutual  Aid  ’ and  Henry  Drummond’s 
4 The  Ascent  of  Man.’ 


CHAPTER  VII 


THE  ETERNAL  FEMININE  IN  NATURE 


‘ Analogy  would  lead  me  one  step  farther,  namely,  to  the  belief  that 
all  animals  and  plants  are  descended  from  some  one  prototype.’' — 
Darwin. 

‘ How  can  those  seeds  which  contain  essential  oils,  rendering  them 
unpalatable  to  birds,  have  been  made  to  secrete  such  essential  oils  by 
these  actions  of  birds  which  they  restrain  ? ’ — Herbert  Spencer. 

1 Indessen  freut  es  immer,  wenn  man  seine  Wurzeln  ausdehnt  und 
seine  Existenz  in  andere  eingreifen  sieht.’ — Schiller. 

1 Wo  fass  ich  dich,  unendliche  Natur  ? Euch  Briiste,  wo  ? ’ — Goethe. 

The  importance  of  the  ‘ Eternal  Feminine,’  as  ex- 
pressed by  that  phrase  in  social  relations,  I believe 
dominates  the  whole  process  of  evolution,  even  to  the 
relations  which  obtain  between  the  plant  and  animal 
world. 

The  case  of  the  defensive  partnership  formed  between 
plants  and  ants  illustrates  the  way  in  which  complements 
arise  in  Nature,  and  how  their  normal  relation  is  one  of 
give  and  take.  The  ants  constitute  themselves  into  a 
body-guard  for  the  defence  of  the  tree,  and  receive  from 


THE  ETERNAL  FEMININE  IN  NATURE 


153 


it  an  equivalent  for  their  services  in  the  form  of  board  and 
lodging.  4 The  preventive  policy  seems  as  if  based  upon 
a quite  rational  deed  of  agreement.’1 

Though  we  may  deny  conscious  choice  or  deliberate 
action  in  these  relations,  we  cannot  deny  that  they 
constitute  economic  relations.  The  example  shows  : 

(a)  That,  generally  speaking,  those  organisms  which 
are  capable  of  maturing  bio-economic  values,  like  the 
tree  in  this  instance,  or  able  to  offer  valuable  services  like 
the  ant,  may  in  various  ways  command  counter-services 
when  opportunities  arise  of  establishing  mutually  useful 
relations  ; 

(b)  That  the  preservation  and  survival  of  such  types 
are  better  secured  than  those  of  predaceous  types  which 
have  nothing  to  offer,  whose  existence  must,  on  the 
contrary,  place  them  in  precarious  antagonism  with 
those  whose  increasing  health  and  strength  repose  in 
systematic  reciprocity  and  mutual  aid  ; 

(c)  That  it  is  the  meek,  anabolic,  vegetative  and 
female  element  in  particular  that  is  characterised  by 
survival  value  ; 2 


1 Massart  and  Vandervelde. 

2 We  have  seen  how  Darwin  attaches  great  importance  to  the  pos- 
session of  ‘ anything  peculiarly  favourable  ’ in  the  organisation,  and  how 
a fortiori  this  is  true  of  the  possession  of  favourable  bio-economic 
peculiarities  (qualifications).  The  plant  shares  with  the  female  of 
animal  species  one  very  important  ‘ favourable  5 peculiarity  : indis- 
pensability—particularly  by  virtue  of  (complemental)  physiological 
labour,  of  gestation,  and  of  eugenics.  It  is  a ‘ peculiarity  ’ that  counts 
for  a great  deal  in  survival. 


154 


EVOLUTION  BY  CO-OPERATION 


( d ) The  principle  of  mutuality  is  universal,  and 
certainly  more  ancient  than  the  race  of  man. 

A further  inference  I draw  from  this  by  no  means 
isolated  case  is  that  the  general  influence  of  the 
plant  kingdom  upon  that  of  the  animal  during  evolu- 
tion has  been  decidedly  educative,  and  is  throughout 
comparable  to  that  which  the  ‘ female  of  the  species  ’ 
has  had  upon  man.  The  long-suffering  plant  kingdom 
has  yet  in  numerous  silent  ways  managed  to  contrive 
the  success  of  the  truly  useful,  and  to  bring  about  the 
ultimate  decline  of  those  organisms  which  misused  the 
established  relation  of  £ give  and  take  ’ between  the  two 
kingdoms. 

Darwin  has  shown  the  gain  of  strength  within  the 
vegetable  kingdom  by  maintenance  of  adequate  relations 
(cross-breeding)  between  the  sexes.  It  was  only  after  a 
great  number  of  generations  that  what  I consider  to  be 
a true  super-adequacy  of  force,  due  to  proper  plant- 
eugenics,  became  apparent.  The  immediate  results  in 
Darwin’s  experiments  frequently  seemed  to  show  that 
self-fertilisation  was  not  prejudicial  to  size  and  numbers. 
It  was  the  remoter  and  permanent  result,  however,  that 
led  Darwin  to  declare  : ‘ Nature  abhors  perpetual  self- 
fertilisation.’ 

I would  emphasise  the  further  implication  that  the 
cross-fertilisation  mode  is  superior,  not  only  as  a superior 
method  of  plant-eugenics,  but  also  because  of  its  greater 
subservience  to  organic  solidarity  in  general.  A striking 


THE  ETERNAL  FEMININE  IN  NATURE 


155 


example  of  the  portentous  value  in  racial  and  general 
utility  of  a combination  of  cross-feeding  and  cross-breeding 
modes  in  a plant  is  presented  by  the  case  of  the  clover. 
Says  Professor  James  Long  : ‘ There  is  nothing  in  romance 
or  ancient  story  more  thrilling  than  the  fact  that  by  the 
employment  of  certain  mineral  fertilisers  [cross-feeding  !] 
the  clovers  and  superior  grasses,  almost  unknown  before, 
appear  and  grow  with  luxuriance ; while  the  inferior 
grasses  and  weeds  disappear,  unable  to  contend  against 
those  species  of  plants,  which,  fed  by  men  [cross-fed  !], 
obtain  the  mastery  of  the  situation. 

4 Clover  is  a deep-rooted  plant  and  a nitrogen-gatherer, 
while  it  revels  in  particular  minerals,  sometimes  one 
alone,  although  sometimes  two  or  three  are  required. 
Thus,  when  these  foods  are  supplied,  clover  responds 
with  its  beautiful  foliage,  its  roots  simultaneously  piercing 
the  soil  to  great  depths  in  search  of  water,  and  at  the 
same  time  appropriating  foods  which  they  find  down 
below,  and  which  they  bring  near  the  surface  for  the 
benefit  of  [co-operation !]  neighbouring  shallow-rooted 
plants  ’ 1 [italics  mine].  Darwin  rightly  laid  great  stress 
on  the  greater  health  and  powers  of  resistance,  and  the 
greater  constitutional  vigour,  exhibited  by  the  cross - 
fertilised  plants  in  his  experiments.  What  I urge  is  that 
in  so  far  as  this  is  the  case  they  can  thus  afford  better 
exchange  values  by  way  of  nutritive  amphimixis  with 
the  animal,  and  thus  conduce  to  a general  advance  of 


1 Daily  News,  May  16,  1913. 


156 


EVOLUTION  BY  CO-OPERATION 


organic  gestation.  I have  already  referred  to  the  case 
of  Linaria  vulgaris,  which,  being  cross-fertilised,  was 
incessantly  visited  by  bees.  Whilst  this  case  bears  out 
the  ecological  aspect,  it  remains  to  be  pointed  out  that 
the  protracted  ‘ gestation  ’ of  the  cross-fertilising  mode 
in  the  vegetable  world  constitutes  a vitally  important 
complement  of  the  protracted  ‘ gestation  ’ characterising 
cross-feeding  and  cross-breeding  in  the  animal  world. 
Nuts,  for  instance,  which  are  so  largely  eaten  by 
mammalia  and  birds,  according  to  Dr.  Wallace,  are 
chiefly  the  products  of  trees  or  shrubs  of  considerable 
longevity,  and,  as  we  may  say  that  in  general  a protracted 
gestation  underlies  longevity, 1 we  can  see  that  there 
exists  a significant  correlation  between  the  processes  of 
gestation  and  maturation  in  the  plant  kingdom  on  the 
one  hand  and  in  the  animal  kingdom  on  the  other. 

Just  as  woman  is  presumed  during  long  ages  to 
have  been  the  selector  and  to  have  controlled  all  sexual 
relations,  just  as  nothing  can  be  evolved  except  through 
and  by  the  female  of  each  species,  so  also  the  plant 
constitutes,  more  generally  speaking,  an  indispensable 
complement  of  the  animal,  and  must  have  contributed 
its  definite  share  to  the  evolution  of  higher  types.  We 

1 ‘ Mr.  E.  Ray  Lankester  has  recently  discussed  this  subject,  and  he 
concludes,  as  far  as  its  extreme  complexity  allows  him  to  form  a judg- 
ment, that  longevity  is  generally  related  to  the  standard  of  each  species 
in  the  scale  of  organisation,  as  well  as  to  the  amount  of  expenditure  in 
reproduction  and  in  general  activity  ’ [italics  mine]. — Darwin,  The  Origin 
of  Species. 


THE  ETERNAL  FEMININE  IN  NATURE 


157 


know  that  in  the  present,  as  in  the  past,  the  distribution 
and  migrations  of  plants  and  of  animals  over  the  earth 
are  in  many  respects  closely  bound  up  with  each  other. 
In  any  case,  no  animal  has  the  power  to  satisfy  one  single 
impulse  of  hunger  without  the  co-operation  of  the 
vegetable  world  ; and  if  fertilisation  has  also  been  viewed 
as  an  anabolic  restoration,  renewal,  and  rejuvenescence 
of  a katabolic  cell,  we  may  similarly  regard  the  satisfaction 
of  hunger  by  an  animal  as  an  attempt  at  restoration  and 
maintenance  of  indispensable  plant  anabolic  complements. 

Fechner  expresses  views  very  similar  to  those  here 
set  forth.  He  is  of  opinion  that  ‘ jeder  Organismus  mit 
der  Welt  in  gewissem  Sinne  verwachsen  ist  ’ — every 
organism  has  in  a certain  sense  evolved  in  correlation  with 
the  world — and  that,  as  regards  the  interdependence  of 
the  inner  life  of  all  organisms,  flower  and  insect  typify 
for  us  ‘ gleichwiegende  Faktoren  eines  lebendigen  Wechsel- 
verhaltnisses  ’ (equivalent  factors  of  a living  reciprocity). 
Whilst  arguing  for  the  existence  of  a plant  soul,  he  avers 
that  in  any  case  plant  and  animal  are  the  two  great  factors 
in  Nature’s  household,  somewhat  in  the  same  way  as 
male  and  female  are  the  two  great  factors  of  the  human 
household. 

According  to  Fechner,  the  significance  of  the  masculine 
or  animal  lies  more  in  the  internal  life,  that  of  the  plant 
and  female  more  in  the  expression  of  beauty — the  mascu- 
line representing  the  aspect  of  purpose,  the  female 
rounding  it  off  and  containing  it  in  beauty. 


158 


EVOLUTION  BY  CO-OPERATION 


In  any  case,  however,  both  parties  are  essential ; and 
if  we  have  at  last  learned  to  reverence  more  justly 
the  wonderful  institution  of  motherhood  and  woman- 
hood, and  to  recognise,  in  Walt  Whitman’s  words, 
that 


Unfolded  only  out  of  the  perfect  body  of  woman 
Can  a man  be  form’d  of  perfect  body 

it  remains  for  us  similarly  to  do  justice  to  the  claims  of 
plant  life  in  this  connection. 

Beauty  in  the  female  and  purposiveness  in  the  male, 
or  their  co-existence  in  either,  have  then  foundation  in 
adequate  relations  between  the  two  great  parties  in  the 
household  of  Nature,  plant  and  animal,  and  he  who  runs 
may  read  on  every  hand  that  an  abuse  of  these  relations 
produces  ugliness  and  criminality,1  which  I interpret  as  the 
result  of  an  imperfect  nutritive  amphimixis. 

The  earth,  according  to  Fechner,  is  the  grand  matrix 
of  all  organic  life  and  reality.2 3  We  rise  upon  the  earth, 
says  Fechner,  ‘ as  wavelets  rise  upon  the  ocean.  We 

1 ‘ The  habitual  murderers,  the  professional  assassins  and  Iiers-in- 

wait,  like  the  alligator,  the  rattlesnake,  the  pufi-adder,  and  the  shark, 
bear  the  brand  of  Cain  on  every  inch  of  their  surface — in  their  dull, 
muddy,  blotchy  colours,  uncouth  or  hideous  shapes,  and  general  repul- 
siveness of  appearance,’  says  Dr.  Woods  Hutchinson. 

3 ‘ Reality,’  said  the  late  Professor  James,  from  whose  work  1 The 
Pluralistic  Universe  ’ the  above  translation  of  Fechner’s  idea  is  taken, 
‘ may  exist  distributively,  just  as  it  sensibly  seems  to,  after  alL’  What  we 
do,  however,  according  to  Professor  James,  is  ‘ to  harness  up  reality  in 
our  conceptual  system,  in  order  to  drive  it  the  better  ’ — ‘ conceptual 
map-making.’  What  he  would  study  is  ‘ the  world  of  causal  and  dyna- 
mic relations,  of  activity  and  history.’ 


THE  ETERNAL  FEMININE  IN  NATURE 


159 


grow  out  of  her  soil  as  leaves  grow  from  a tree.  The 
wavelets  catch  the  sunbeams  separately,  the  leaves 
stir  when  the  branches  do  not  move.  They  realise  their 
own  events  apart,  just  as  in  our  own  consciousness,  when 
anything  becomes  emphatic,  the  background  fades  from 
observation.  Yet  the  event  works  back  upon  the  back- 
ground as  the  wavelet  works  inside  the  branch.  The 
whole  sea  and  the  whole  tree  are  registers  of  what  has 
happened,  and  are  different  for  the  wave’s  and  the  leaf’s 
action  having  occurred.’ 

If  Fechner  is  right,  it  follows  that  it  is  very  important 
we  should  consider  that  nutrition  is  a means  of  maintaining 
adequate  relations  with  the  earth,  i.e.  of  replenishing 
our  vitality  from  the  great  store  of  the  earth.  Whole- 
some plant  food  is  thus  a means  of  importing  vital  ‘ earth- 
force  ’ or  ‘ soil-reality  ’ into  the  constitution  of  the 
animal.  Where  abuse  is  absent,  the  animal,  which 
cannot  draw  directly  on  the  soil  as  the  plant  can,  obtains 
adequate  force  in  just  proportions.  It  obtains  proper 
‘ female  ’ qualities  needed  in  its  constitution  to  balance 
the  ‘ male  ’ (or  katabolic)  qualities,  and  thus  to  maintain 
beauty  and  symmetry  and  its  proper  male-female 
character.  In  the  alternative  event,  however — with 
depredation — the  felony  of  the  partner  (the  animal) 
turns  the  gift  of  the  plant  into  a poison — ‘ der  Blumen 
Rache  ’ — and  the  plant  evolves  in  self-defence  contri- 
vances of  an  antagonistic  order.  Still  less,  as  we  have 
seen,  can  an  animal  afford  in  the  long  run  to  obtain 


360 


EVOLUTION  BY  CO-OPERATION 


force  second-hand  by  in- feeding,  which  means  a shortage 
of  indispensable  complemental  qualities,  resulting  in 
corresponding  abnormalities  (dimorphism). 

The  soil-theory  of  evolution,  held  by  some  of  the  older 
naturalists,  indeed  becomes  somewhat  intelligible  in  the 
light  of  the  above  considerations  concerning  nutrition 
and  the  complements  involved  in  the  processes  of  its 
maturation. 

Thus  a French  writer,  Tremaux,  stated  : ‘ La  perfection 
des  etres  est  ou  devient  proportionnelle  au  degre  d’elabo- 
ration  du  sol  sur  lequel  ils  vivent ; et  le  sol  est  en  general 
d’autant  plus  elabore  qu’il  appartient  a une  formation 
geologique  plus  recente.’  And  a critical  contemporary 
of  Darwin  states  : ‘ It  is  amusing  to  find  that  Mr.  Darwin 
occasionally  invokes  the  assistance  of  the  soil  to  eke 
out  the  deficiencies  of  Natural  Selection.’ 

We  may  say  that  as  soon  as  the  fertility  of  the  soil 
is  able  to  meet  the  demands  of  more  highly  organised 
plants,  theirs  is  the  prior  claim  to  soil  sustenance,  much 
in  the  same  way  as  in  the  human  body  the  lira  in,  as  the 
highest  organ,  has  the  prior  claim  on  the  blood  suppljn 
Thus  the  benefits  of  fertilisation  are  distributed  according 
to  value  and  qualification  ; and  thus  it  is  that  the  advent 
of  higher  values  and  qualifications  everywhere  sets  up 
a new  order  of  things,  a new  dispensation,  with  a new 
level  of  life  and  a new  distribution  of  organic  assets. 

If  we  consider,  with  Fechner,  the  earth  as  the  grand 
complement  of  the  organic  family,  we  may  see  how  in  a 


THE  ETERNAL  FEMININE  IN  NATURE 


161 


general  way,  and  greatly  through  nutrition,  there  had 
to  be  this  interaction  between  soil  and  organism,  and  we 
can  see  in  this  an  additional  reason  for  avoiding  pre- 
daceous exploitation  of  the  soil  (‘  Eaub-bau  ’).  Truly  it  is 
said  in  the  Scriptures  that  ‘ thou  shalt  be  in  league  with 
the  stones  of  the  field.’  We  speak  of  ‘ mother  ’ earth, 
and  in  Greek  mythology  Antaeus,  the  giant  of  Libya,  the 
son  of  Poseidon  and  Gaea,  when  thrown  in  combat,  derived 
fresh  strength  from  each  successive  contact  with  his 
mother  earth,  which  is  figurative  of  the  way  in  which  we 
still  obtain  ‘ Antaeus  ’-force  from  mother  earth  by 
remaining  in  adequate  contact  with  her.  This  task,  I 
submit,  is  performed  by  proper  nutrition — a system  of 
reciprocal  elaboration  and  maturation,  enabling  us  to 
maintain  the  process  at  a high  degree  of  efficiency  whilst 
conducing  by  the  very  beneficence  of  its  correlations  to 
the  maintenance  of  a maximum  of  organic  endowments 
at  a minimum  of  cost.  It  is  in  this  way  also  that 
nutrition  has  a predetermining  evolutionary  value, 
and — although  otherwise  a mechanical  cause — ulti- 
mately involves  the  teleological,  and  is  pre-eminently 
calculated  to  subserve  ( dem  Wahren,  Schonen, 
Guten.’ 

What  Robert  Chambers  terms  the  ‘ long-enduring 
gestation  of  Nature  ’ is  thus,  in  my  opinion,  primarily 
constituted  by  the  reciprocal  maturation  of  qualities  by 
plant  and  animal,  which  qualities,  when  fused  by  adequate 
cross-feeding,  are  calculated  to  produce  a ‘ nutritive 

SI 


162 


EVOLUTION  BY  CO-OPERATION 


amphimixis  ’ analogous  to  the  fusion  of  reciprocally 
differentiated  germ-cells  in  sexual  amphimixis.  Such 
‘ nutritive  ’ amphimixis — preceded,  as  it  requires  to  he,  hy 
adequate  reciprocal  activities — hy  restoring  Force,  Qualities 
and  Balance  ( metabolic  and  morphological),  constitutes,  in 
my  view,  the  most  potent  factor  of  progressive  evolution. 

Sexual  union  was  only  a repetition  of  the  same 
reciprocal  method  on  a higher  plane,  and  rather  more 
concerned  with  the  husbanding  of  those  ‘ higher  ’ values 
and  qualities  which  have  arisen  as  a superstructure  upon 
the  nutritive  life. 

On  the  structural  side  one  good  result  of  this  ‘ long- 
enduring  gestation  of  Nature  ’ was  the  perfection  of  the 
human  pelvis,  which  gives  the  organic  structure  necessary 
for  sustaining  an  erect  position.  The  progressive  evolution 
of  pelvic  elements,  in  my  opinion,  depends  on  the  progress 
of  complemental  gestation  processes — nutritive  (bio- 
economic)  as  well  as  sexual.  In  any  case  the  retrograde 
developments  as  regards  the  pelvis  can  be  traced  to 
abnormal  feeding  habits — habitual  abuse  of  the  anabolic 
complement  by  the  animal — just  as  other  anatomic 
deteriorations  are  traceable  to  the  same  source.  The 
reptiles,  once  possessed  of  greater  pelvic  advantages,  now 
crawl  on  their  bellies. 

In  ‘ Nutrition  and  Evolution  ’ I have  shown  that  in 
the  vegetable  kingdom  also  the  strength  and  rigidity  of 
‘ erect  ’ plants — the  presence  of  sclerenchyma — depend 
on  tiieir  mode  of  nutrition.  As  examples  of  useful  types 


THE  ETERNAL  FEMININE  IN  NATURE 


168 


we  may  instance  the  cotton  plant,  its  fibre  being  full  of 
elongated  cells,  also  the  oak,  ash,  and  elm,  all  hardy  and 
useful  plants.  On  the  other  hand,  parasitic  plants,  at 
any  rate  those  without  green  leaves,  in-feeders  like  the 
broom-rape  and  the  dodder,  can  only  maintain  herbaceous, 
soft  and  short-lived  stems,  with  at  best  isolated  strands 
of  wood  and  phloem  tissue. 

From  all  of  which  again  it  follows  that  it  is  a combined 
and  co-operative  nutritive  and  sexual  gestation  of  appro- 
priate qualities  that  has  produced  the  highest  results  in 
evolution. 


CHAPTER  VIII 


ADEQUACY  OF  FORCES 


4 Nature  always  works  with  long  roots.’ — Henry  Drummond. 

4 The  general  character  of  the  Gasteropoda  as  a class  is  harmless,  like 
that  of  the  herbivorous  mammalia.’  . . The  humble  Hdicidae  (snails), 
a family  of  Gasteropoda,  are  the  first  animals  which  we  encounter  as 
adventuring  upon  the  firm  surface  of  the  globe.’  . . . ‘ The  (peculiarly 
destructive)  Cephalopoda  do  not  advance  like  these  to  land  forms,  with 
apparatus  for  aerial  respiration.’ — Robert  Chambers. 

As  I have  pointed  out,  in  the  absence  of  a systematic 
biological  analysis  and  particularly  through  the  neglect 
of  the  study  of  nutrition,  the  subjects  of  quality  and 
adequacy  have  hitherto  received  too  little  attention  at 
the  hands  of  experimenters  and  thinkers  alike. 

Robert  Chambers,  of  the  old  school  of  theorists,  was 
a geologist  rather  than  a physiologist.  Although  he 
otherwise  emphasised  the  importance  of  prolonged 
gestation  as  a factor  of  evolution,  he  did  not  realise  the 
importance  of  nutrition  as  a predetermining  force  in  the 
protracted  gestation  processes  of  Nature.  Very  com- 
mendably  he  affirmed,  however,  that  whatever  it  be  that 
produces  retrogression  in  Nature,  it  is  but  a reversal  of 


ADEQUACY  OF  FORCES 


165 


the  order  which  originally  produced  progress.  Thus, 
referring  to  such  cases  as  prominence  of  jaws,  recession  and 
diminution  of  the  cranium,  and  certain  classes  of  mon- 
strosities which,  in  his  view,  provide  an  illustration  of  a 
reversal  of  progressive  evolution,  he  says  : 

‘ It  is  no  great  boldness  to  surmise  that  a super- 
adequacy of  force  in  the  measure  of  this  under-adequacy 
(and  the  one  thing  seems  as  natural  an  occurrence  as  the 
other)  would  suffice  in  a natatorial  bird  to  give  it  as  a 
progeny  the  ornithorhynchus,  or  might  give  the  progeny 
of  an  ornithorhynchus  the  mouth  and  feet  of  a true 
mammalian,  and  thus  complete  at  two  stages  a passage 
from  one  class  to  another.’ 

Very  pertinently  he  goes  on  : ‘ Perhaps,  with  the 
bulk  of  men,  even  those  devoted  to  science,  the  great 
difficulty  is,  after  all,  in  conceiving  the  particulars  of 
such  a process  as  would  be  required  to  advance  a fish 
into  a reptile.  And  yet  no  difficulty  could  well  be  less 
substantial,  seeing  that  the  metamorphosis  of  the  tadpole 
into  the  frog — a phenomenon  presented  to  our  observation 
in  countless  instances  every  spring— -is,  in  part  at  least,  as 
thoroughly  a transmutation  of  the  fish  organisation  into 
that  of  the  reptile  as  the  supposable  change  of  sauroid 
fishes  into  saurian  reptiles  could  ever  be.  It  is  different, 
as  being  only  a process  in  ordinary  gestation  ; but  it 
realises,  as  far  as  the  necessary  organic  changes  are  concerned, 
the  hypothetic  view  of  an  advance  of  one  grade  of  animal 
forms  into  another.  There  is  another  fact  connected 


166 


EVOLUTION  BY  CO-OPERATION 


with  the  reproduction  of  the  batrachian  order  of  reptiles, 
that,  when  the  young  are  enclosed  in  a dark  box  sunk  in 
a river,  with  holes  through  which  the  water  may  flow,  the 
animals  grow,  but  never  undergo  their  destined  change  ; 
they  become  gigantic  tadpoles,  and  the  reptile  characters 
are  not  developed.  Here  the  progeny  of  a reptile  literally 
becomes  a fish,  and  transition  of  species  is  thoroughly 
realised,  although  in  retrogression.  And  this  is  an 
instance  in  which  the  whole  animal  is  concerned.  Now 
surely  no  one  will  deny  that  that  which  we  see  Nature 
undo  she  is  able  to  do,  and  might  be  seen  doing,  if  the 
proper  occasion  were  to  occur,  or  were  the  requisite 
attendant  conditions  realised.’ 

Having  already  pointed  out  in  some  detail  what 
constitutes  the  double  gestation  process  of  Nature,  I 
have  but  to  add  that  the  case  of  the  tadpole,  here 
instanced,  provides  an  example  of  the  progressive  evo- 
lution of  a cross-feeder — the  tadpole  being  one  of  those 
types  that  have  remained  faithful  to  primitive  cross- 
feeding habits.  The  general  adequacy  of  such  habits, 
as  I have  already  shown,  is  sufficient  to  provide  the 
‘ requisite  attendant  conditions  ’ of  progress. 

In  those  cases,  however,  where  the  force  originally 
derived  from  cross-feeding  is  turned  to  abuse,  just  as  in 
the  above  instance  where  it  is  artificially  diverted,  it  is  apt 
to  produce  arrested  development  or  precocious  maturity, 
or  monstrosity,  as  the  case  may  be. 

The  metamorphosis  of  the  Batrachians  is  thus  typical 


ADEQUACY  OF  FORCES 


167 


of  the  way  in  which  variations  arise  in  Nature  through 
influences  upon,  or  modifications  in,  the  various  processes 
that  are  vital  in  ‘ natural  gestation  ’ and  the  case  in  point 
certainly  presents  a more  pertinent  and  a more  legitimate 
example  of  progressive  evolution  than  the  case  of  domes- 
tication, which  is  a comparative  surface-change  only. 

It  is  remarkable  in  this  connection  that  the  Batrachians 
excel  by  various  forms  of  protection  of  the  young  and  of 
direct  nursing  by  the  parents. 

It  was  recognised  by  Darwin  that  (apart  from  changes 
in  the  environment,  such  as  climate,  vegetation,  compe- 
tition, enemies),  certain  habits  play  a part  in  the 
‘ transition  of  forms.’ 

In  ‘ The  Origin  of  Species  ’ he  tells  us  : * As  we  some- 
times see  individuals  following  habits  different  from  those 
proper  to  their  species  [italics  mine]  and  to  the  other  species 
of  the  same  genus,  we  might  expect  that  such  individuals 
would  occasionally  give  rise  to  new  species,  having 
anomalous  habits,  and  with  their  structure  either  slightly 
or  considerably  modified  from  that  of  their  type.  And 
such  instances  occur  in  Nature.  Can  a more  striking 
instance  of  adaptation  be  given  than  that  of  a woodpecker 
for  climbing  trees  and  seizing  insects  in  the  chinks  of  the 
bark  ? Yet  in  North  America  there  are  woodpeckers 
which  feed  largely  on  fruit,  and  others  with  elongated 
wings  which  chase  insects  on  the  wing.’ 

The  emphasis  with  Darwin,  however,  is  on  the 
mechanical  aspect  of  particular  habits  rather  than  on  the 


168 


EVOLUTION  BY  CO-OPERATION 


general  morphological,  bio-economic  and  eugenic  effects 
universally  associated  with  nutritional  habits.  He  over- 
looks that  it  is  the  antecedent  (positive)  factors  of 
‘ nutritional  gestation  ’ which  provide  the  clue  to  all  later 
developments.  Instead  of  recognising  the  fundamental 
importance  of  these  factors,  Darwin — rather  superficially, 
though  it  is  important  genealogically — refers  us  back 
to  some  ‘ unknown  prototype,’  equipped  (or  ‘ furnished’) 
with  such  wonderful  endowments  (we  must  suppose)  as 
to  render  all  future  steps  of  evolution  comparatively  easy. 
Thus,  in  speaking  of  the  swim-bladder  as  a good  illus- 
tration of  how  an  organ  originally  constructed  for  one 
purpose,  namely  flotation,  may  in  course  of  evolution  be 
converted  into  one  for  a widely  different  purpose,  namely 
respiration,  he  says  : ‘ According  to  this  view  it  may  be 
inferred  that  all  vertebrate  animals  with  true  lungs  are 
descended  by  ordinary  generation  from  an  ancient  and 
unknown  prototype,  which  was  furnished  with  a floating 
apparatus  or  swim-bladder  ’ [italics  mine]. 

An  ancient  and  unknown  but  accommodating  proto- 
type ! Given  a million  of  years  of  orthogenesis  for  the 
production  of  an  appropriate  prototype,  and  what  future 
possibilities  may  we  not  expect  ? If  this  ideal  prototype 
had  been  an  in-feeder  dwelling  at  the  bottom  of  the  sea, 
it  would  scarcely  have  attained  to  aerial  respiration  ! It 
was,  on  the  contrary,  the  sufficiency  of  a protracted 
‘ nutritional  gestation,’  which  produced  the  prototype, 
i.e.  laid  the  auspicious  foundation  for  later  eugenic 


ADEQUACY  OF  FORCES 


169 


transformations.  According  to  Cope,  the  point  of  de- 
parture of  progressive  lines  ‘ has  not  been  from  the 
terminal  types  of  the  lines  of  preceding  ages,  but  from 
points  further  back  in  the  series.’ 

Progress  depends  upon  long  roots,  i.e.  upon  a 
sufficiency  of  nutritional  (natural)  gestation.  We  cannot 
expect  ‘ terminal  types,’  insufficient  in  this  respect, 
merely  because  they  preceded  in  time,  to  have  been 
the  ancestors  of  our  progressive  lines.  Just  as  the 
passing  of  every  organism  through  the  unicellular 
condition  in  sexual  reproduction  is  indispensable  to 
rejuvenescence  and  to  the  thorough  blending  of  ancestral 
and  evolved  qualities,  so  the  sufficiency  of  a genuine,  co- 
operative ‘ nutritional  ’ amphimixis  alone  can  guarantee 
permanent  progress.  Just  as,  on  the  other  hand,  asexual 
modes  of  propagation  are  possible  for  temporary  pur- 
poses, so  less  sufficient  modes  of  ‘ nutritional  ’ gestation 
are  possible  for  a time,  although  neither  provide  the 
conditions  for  progressive  evolution  or  for  the  arrival  of 
useful  prototypes.  These  vital  considerations,  however, 
have  been  consistently  overlooked  by  previous  writers. 

The  ‘ Vestiges  of  Creation  ’ provides  another  interesting 
case  of  morbidity  and  tendency  towards  monstrosity 
resulting  from  surfeit.  ‘ When  the  eggs  of  the  wild  goose,’ 
says  Professor  Low,  ‘ are  taken,  and  the  young  are  supplied 
with  food  in  unlimited  quantity,  the  result  is  remarkable. 
The  intestines,  and  with  them  the  abdomen,  become  so 
much  enlarged  that  the  animal  nearly  loses  the  power 


170 


EVOLUTION  BY  CO-OPERATION 


of  flight,  and  the  powerful  muscles  which  enabled  him 
in  a wild  state  to  take  such  flights  become  feeble  from 
disease,  and  his  long  wings  are  rendered  unserviceable. 
The  beautiful  bird  that  outstripped  the  flight  of  the 
eagle  is  now  a captive  without  a chain.’ 

As  regards  the  atrophy  of  the  wings  and  pectoral  arch, 
which  means  a loss  of  the  most  marked  characteristic  of 
birds — their  power  of  flight — it  is  hinted  by  Matthew 
Davenport  Hill,  M.A.,  F.Z.S.,1  that  absence  of  enemies, 
abundance  of  food,  and  the  mysterious  law7  of  correlation 
(of  structures)  may  all  have  had  something  to  do  with  the 
phenomenon. 

In  view7  of  his  uncertainties  on  these  matters,  howrever, 
the  writer  has  one  ‘ certain  ’ explanation  ready  at  hand  : 
Natural  Selection. 

His  useful  little  article  nevertheless  showrs  us  that  the 
‘ misere  ’ of  flightless  birds  is  associated  and  correlated 
with  their  in-feeding  habits.  The}7  are  usually  of  large 
size — too  heavy  and  surfeited  for  flight.  ‘ Muscular 
tissue  and  general  vertebrate  anatomy  being  what  they 
are,  we  may  safely  assume  that  no  animal  much  larger 
than  a man  ever  flew  through  the  atmosphere  of  our 
planet.’ 

We  are  also  told  that  ‘ there  can  be  little  doubt  that 
the  reptilian  forerunners  of  birds  generally  were  terrestrial, 
and  probably  arboreal,  animals,  not  aquatic,  as  some 
writers  have  suggested,’  which,  in  my  opinion,  points  to 
the  fact  that  these  reptile  forerunners  of  birds  must  have 
1 Knowledge,  August  1911. 


ADEQUACY  OF  FORCES 


171 


been  largely  cross-feeding  animals,  living  in  a more 
advanced  degree  of  association  with  vegetation  than  is 
possible  in  the  water.  By  breaking  away,  however, 
from  their  primitive  cross-feeding  habits  and  taking 
retrogressively  to  an  aquatic  habitat,  they  became 
‘ gigantic  ’ degenerates,  whose  ‘ misere  ’ is  of  the  same 
nature  as,  though  more  pronounced  than,  that  of  the 
wild  goose  mentioned  above. 

Mr.  Davenport  Hill  introduces  us  to  one  of  the  most 
ancient  known  birds,  Hesperornis,  found  in  the  Cretaceous 
shales  of  Kansas,  which  had  lost  the  power  of  flight 
completely. 

‘ The  bird  was  a gigantic  diver,  allied  to  the  grebes  of 
to-day,  so  well  adapted  to  an  aquatic  habitat  that  it 
probably  rarely,  if  ever,  walked  on  land.  The  set-back 
of  the  legs,  and  the  large  knee-cap  and  enemial  crest, 
seem  to  have  rendered  an  erect  position  impossible .’ 

I have  italicised  what  is  important  in  this  passage 
as  pointing  to  the  broader  correlations  that  we  have 
now  seen  to  exist  between  habits  and  organisation. 

An  instance  from  plant  life,  showing  how  monstrosity 
resulting  from  surfeit  and  abnormal  metabolism  is  cor- 
related with  ecological  deterioration,  is  presented  by 
the  case  of  gigantic  mushrooms.  In  proportion  to  the 
increase  in  dimensions  they  become  more  and  more 
unwholesome,  if  not  actually  poisonous — they  lose  in 
amphimixis-value,  and  they  cannot  conduce  to  general 
eugenics  (or  progressive  evolution)  as  adequately  as  in 
the  unsurfeited  condition. 


CHAPTER  IX 

EVOLUTION  BY  PARASITISM 


‘ The  extinction  of  species  has  been  involved  in  the  most  gratuitous 
mystery.’  . . .‘No  one  can  have  marvelled  more  than  I have  done  at  the 
extinction  of  species.’ — Darwin. 

‘ Woe  to  him  that  increaseth  that  tvhich  is  not  his  ! how  long  ? 
and  to  him  that  ladeth  himself  with  thick  clay  ! ’ 

‘ Because  thou  hast  spoiled  many  nations,  all  the  remnant  of  the 
people  shall  spoil  thee.’ — Habakkuk  II. 

‘ Be  not  afraid,  ye  beasts  of  the  field  : for  the  pastures  of  the  wilder- 
ness do  spring,  for  the  tree  beareth  her  fruit,  the  fig  tree  and  the  vine 
do  j'ield  their  strength.’ — Joel  II,  22. 

My  general  thesis  as  regards  parasitism  (as  stated  in  a 
previous  chapter),  that  it  is  an  offence  against  the  normal 
order  of  Nature,  inasmuch  as  it  disturbs  the  reciprocal 
relations  between  animal  and  plant  and  between  com- 
plementary groups  of  each — and  is  consequently  and 
inevitably  punished  by  degeneration  and  decline  in  the 
long  run — is  borne  out  by  the  facts  disclosed  in  a sugges- 
tive little  work,  prefaced  by  Professor  Patrick  Geddes,  on 
‘ Parasitism,  Organic  and  Social,’  by  Jean  Massart  and 
Emile  Vandervelde.  This  book  attempts  to  show  the 
relations  between  parasitism  among  plants  and  animals 


EVOLUTION  BY  PARASITISM 


173 


and  parasitism  in  human  society,  and  furnishes  much 
evidence  of  the  truth  of  my  contention. 

Thus,  we  are  told  that  one  mode  of  getting  nourish- 
ment is  by  obtaining  it  directly  from  inorganic  material, 
as  most  green  plants  do.  This  mode  of  nutrition,  which 
I would  comprise  under  ‘ cross-feeding,’  the  authors 
term  holophytic  (a). 

‘ The  seed-bearing  plants,  or  Phanerogams,  are 
almost  exclusively  holophytic  (cross-feeders).  ...  The 
holophytic  method  is  evidently  the  most  primitive.’ 

An  organism  may  ‘ utilise  the  debris,  the  excreta,  the 
dead  bodies  of  other  organisms.  It  is  then  said  to  be 
saprophytic,  coprophagous,  or  necrophagous  ’ (h). 

Or  it  may  live  on  the  very  substance  of  another 
organism,  either  destroying  its  victim,  as  predatory 
organisms  do  (c)  ; or  exploiting  it,  after  the  manner  of 
parasites  ( d ) ; or  getting  nourishment  from  it  in  return 
for  services  rendered,  as  in  mutualism  (e). 

Needless  to  say,  modes  b,  c,  and  d,  on  my  classifica- 
tion, would  come  under  ‘ in-feeding,’  whilst  (e),  the  most 
important  of  all  (in  my  opinion),  comes  under  the  head  of 
‘ cross-feeding.’ 

We  learn  : ‘ The  primitive  holophytic  organisms  must 
have  been  followed  by  those  which  were  able  to  feed  upon 
organic  debris  and  to  reduce  that  once  more  to  inorganic 
material.  The  occurrence  of  saprophytes  is  essential  to 
the  conservation  of  life.  If  the  saprophytic,  coprophagous, 
and  necrophagous  organisms  disappeared,  dead  bodies  and 


174 


EVOLUTION  BY  CO-OPERATION 


excreta  would  accumulate  on  the  earth’s  surface,  all  the 
material  utilisable  by  animals  or  by  plants  would  be 
locked  up  in  the  remains,  and  if  there  wrere  no  power 
to  restore  the  dead  material  to  an  inorganic  state  the 
earth  would  soon  become  nothing  but  a gigantic  charnel- 
house. 

‘ Thus  it  was  only  after  the  establishment  of  holo- 
phytic  and  saprophytic  organisms  that  it  was  possible  for 
predatory,  mutualist,  or  parasitic  forms  of  life  to  appear. 

‘ The  parasites  may  have  been  derived  from  forms 
which  found  their  sustenance  in  any  of  the  four  ways 
already  mentioned.  The  Thinanthaceae,  such  as  the 
yellow-rattle,  are  derived  from  holophytic  Scrophularia- 
ceae  ; the  fungi  wdiich  live  at  the  expense  of  other  plants 
are  often  traceable  to  saprophytic  ancestors  ; the  barnacle- 
like Cirripedia  which  exploit  crabs  are  descended  from 
carnivorous  crustaceans  ; and  the  humble-bees  which 
steal  the  nectar  of  the  toad-flax  (Linaria)  began  with 
taking  the  honey  as  a reward  for  carrying  the  pollen  from 
flower  to  flower.’ 

This  I take  to  show  in  the  main  that  in-feeders  are 
descended  from  cross-feeders,  whatever  may  have  been 
the  necessities  and  temptations  that  have  led  many  types 
to  deviate  from  their  primitive  feeding  habits. 

We  also  learn  that  elaboration  of  food  by  the  organism, 
even  when  it  is  obtained  without  effort,  is  a matter  of 
some  consequence  and  prevents  the  extreme  consequences 
of  pure  parasitism  in  the  way  of  degeneration,  for  ‘ the 


EVOLUTION  BY  PARASITISM 


175 


Isopod  crustaceans,  which  live  in  the  mouths  of  fishes  and 
take  their  food  just  as  it  has  been  seized,  before  it  has 
been  subjected  to  any  process  of  digestion,  have  retained 
all  their  digestive  organs.’  To  this  type  of  parasite  Van 
Beneden  has  applied  the  term  commensal. 

‘ Worms  and  other  animals  which  infest  the  alimentary 
canal  illustrate  a more  advanced  stage  of  parasitism  ; they 
take  food  which  has  been  more  or  less  digested,  and 
therefore  they  are  able  to  dispense  with,  and  are  generally 
without,  those  organs  whose  function  it  is  to  render  the 
food  diffusible. 

‘ Finally,  those  parasites  which  live  in  the  blood  and 
the  tissues,  and  thus  obtain  completely  assimilated 
material,  are  in  most  cases  without  any  digestive  system. 
They  are  fed  by  diffusion  from  the  nutritive  medium  in 
which  they  are  bathed.’  And  further  that  ‘ certain 
saprophytic,  coprophagous,  or  necrophagous  species  may 
become  completely  transformed  into  parasites  ; others, 
while  preserving  their  original  mode  of  nutrition,  may 
exhibit  characters  which  link  them  more  or  less  closely 
to  parasites.’ 

Further  interesting  items  bearing  on  points  that  I 
have  previously  raised  are  : — 

(a)  ‘ Parasitism  involving  the  Exploitation  of  Energy. — 
Belonging  to  this  category  are  those  organisms  which  rob 
another  creature  of  part  of  its  physical  energy.  These 
are  not  usually  regarded  as  parasites,  although  it  is  plain 
enough  that  one  may  live  at  another’s  expense  by  utilising 


176 


EVOLUTION  BY  CO-OPERATION 


his  energy  as  well  as  by  robbing  him  of  his  substance. 
Of  course  it  is  a question  of  definition,  but  it  seems  to 
us  useful  to  bring  those  forms  which  take  advantage  of 
the  energy  of  their  neighbours,  or  of  external  resemblance 
to  them,  under  the  same  category  as  those  which  borrow 
nutriment.  For  theri  are  very  close  affinities  between 
these  phenomena, — a inities  often  unrecognised,  since 
the  facts  are  studied  separately.’ 

(b)  A Return  from  Parasitism. — ‘ Many  plants  which 
ordinarily  perch  themselves  on  the  trunks  of  trees  are 
found  from  time  to  time  growing  on  rocks,  or  sending 
roots  into  the  ground,  thus  returning  to  an  inorganic 
support.’ 

We  next  come  across  an  economic  argument  : ‘ It 
is  quite  inconceivable  that  an  animal  or  plant  should 
draw  its  nutriment  continuously  from  another  of  its  own 
kind  without  destroying  it  ; or  even  that  it  should 
exploit  the  energies  of  its  fellow  for  any  length  of  time 
without  exhausting  the  latter’s  vitality.’ 

What  seems  equally  inconceivable  to  me  is  that 
parasites  can  carry  on  such  a process  for  any  length  of 
time  without  injuring  themselves,  and  without  seriously 
disturbing  the  balance  of  the  organic  world  generally. 

In  the  place  of  the  elegant  observation  made  by  the 
authors  that  ‘ Natural  selection  has  raised  the  parasitic 
habit  to  the  dignity  of  a specific  character,’  I would  say 
that  at  best  only  the  undignified  r61e  of  scavengers  remains 
open  to  those  organisms  which  are  slowly  travelling  alone 


EVOLUTION  BY  PARASITISM 


177 


the  lines  of  mere  (selfish)  expediency,  and  hence  in  the 
pathological  direction.  Though  finally  diverging  far 
enough  from  their  normal  kin  to  make  different  classi- 
fication convenient,  such  divergence,  in  my  opinion,  does 
not  confer  dignity  upon  an  organism  any  more  than  does 
the  mere  fact  of  (redundant)  reproduction.  The  only 
measure  of  dignity  in  Nature,  in  my  opinion,  is  loyalty 
to  bio-economic  service. 

The  fact  that,  in  the  authors’  own  words,  ‘ Degenerate 
parents  do,  it  is  true,  rear  degenerate  offspring,’  conveys 
to  my  mind  little  idea  of  dignity  in  parasitism.  The 
authors  also  are  agreed  that  in  the  social  world,  the  social 
body  is  injured  in  its  substance,  i.e.  its  resources,  by 
parasitism  : ‘ In  the  social,  as  in  the  organic  sphere,  the 
smaller  the  amount  of  effort  required  in  exploiting  its 
victim,  the  more  accentuated  and  typical  becomes  the 
parasitic  character  of  the  exploiting  agent.’ 

Another  chapter  bears  on  the  evolution  of  Parasitism  : 
‘ It  would  be  exceedingly  interesting  to  know  accurately 
what  are  its  beginnings  and  predisposing  causes  . . . 
Among  plants,  and  among  the  Protists,  or  simplest  forms 
of  life — such  as  the  Bacteria,  which  seem  to  incline  to 
the  vegetable  type — parasitism  is  always  derived  from  a 
holophytic  or  saprophytic  mode  of  life.  We  shall 
illustrate  this  by  examples  taken  at  various  stages  of 
plant-life,  from  the  Bacteria  to  the  Phanerogams. 

‘ The  tubercle  bacillus  may  serve  as  the  example  of 
this  final  stage  in  the  evolution  of  a habit  which  takes  its 

N 


178 


EVOLUTION  BY  CO-OPERATION 


origin  from  a kolophytic  mode  of  existence.  Parasitism 
more  complete  it  is  impossible  to  conceive.  For  tliis 
organism  is  in  the  first  case  incapable  of  developing  at 
all  unless  within  its  proper  host.  It  draws  its  food- 
supply  from  the  lymph  and  cellular  substance  of  its 
victim,  and  is  indebted  to  the  blood  not  only  for  oxygen 
but  also  for  the  warmth  that  is  a necessary  condition  to 
its  continued  existence,  its  adaptation  to  the  temperature 
of  the  body  it  inhabits  being  so  complete  that  it  can  hardly 
survive  a transference.  Nay,  so  thorough  is  its  dependence 
that,  powerless  to  move  itself,  it  is  indebted  to  the  heart- 
beat of  its  host  for  the  force  which,  carrying  it  along  the 
blood-current,  enables  it  to  spread  through  the  whole 
system.’ 

‘ The  transition  from  holophytism  to  parasitism  is 
still  more  obvious  in  the  teratological  phenomenon 
knoAvn  as  variegation.  Upon  the  leaves  of  many  plants, 
especially  Japanese  ones,  there  are  areas  entirely  devoid 
of  chlorophyll.  The  cells  of  these  colourless  parts  are 
therefore  incapable  of  effecting  the  organic  synthesis 
characteristic  of  plants  [italics  mine],  i.e.  they  are  incapable 
of  absorbing  carbonic  acid  from  the  air,  splitting  it  up 
by  the  aid  of  the  radiant  energy  which  passes  through 
the  green  colouring  matter,  liberating  the  oxygen,  and 
retaining  the  carbon  as  the  basis  of  new  organic  com- 
pounds. They  are  therefore  compelled  to  exist  as 
parasites  upon  the  green  parts  of  the  plant.  This 
chlorosis  may  even  extend  to  a whole  branch,  in  which 


EVOLUTION  BY  PABASITISM 


179 


case  the  helplessness  of  this  part  is  shown  readily  by  the 
fact  that  a cutting  made  from  it  cannot  live.  Be  it 
observed,  however,  that  in  such  cases  of  variegation  we 
have  to  deal,  not  with  one  individual  living  at  the 
expense  of  another,  but  merely  with  a group  of  cells 
which  makes  the  rest  of  the  colony  minister  to  its 
necessities.’ 

This  last  case,  in  my  humble  opinion,  presents  an 
analogue  to  that  of  the  pathological  and  antagonistic 
cell- development  in  cancer.  In  any  case  such  an  instance 
of  pronounced  pathology  and  precariousness  as  pre- 
sented by  these  examples  of  the  tubercle  bacillus  and 
of  chlorosis  among  plants  must  preclude  every  idea  of 
the  * dignity  ’ of  parasitism,  however  frequently  it  may 
give  rise  to  fresh  classifications  in  text-books. 

Another  lesson  is  that : ‘ Certain  species  of  Botrytis 
live  at  the  expense  of  living  plants,  but  are  incapable  of 
successfully  attacking  one  which  is  completely  healthy. 
They  always  begin  by  installing  themselves  in  a cell 
which  has  perished  for  some  reason  or  other  ; and  taking 
this  as  their  base  of  operations  they  extend  themselves 
and  carry  death  to  the  cells  around.’ 

We  may  thus  conclude  that  it  is  the  ill-health — in 
particular,  I would  urge,  the  excess  of  nutrition  and  the 
resulting  surfeit  and  morbidity — of  otherwise  or  pre- 
viously strenuous  organisms  which  we  must  hold  largely 
responsible  for  an  intensification  of  the  in-feeding 
diathesis  among  saprophytes.  A congenial  soil  (surfeit) 


180 


EVOLUTION  BY  CO- OPERATION 


in  one  organism  frequently  is  an  invitation  to  parasitic 
indulgences  on  the  part  of  another.  The  in-feeding 
habit  in  particular  seems  to  produce  a fertile  soil  for 
an  intestinal  flora.  Individual  balance  stands  thus  in 
correlation  with  organic  balance  generally. 

As  regards  the  evolution  of  Parasitism  among  animals 
we  learn  : ‘The  critical  methods  of  embryology  and  of 
morphology  alone  are  in  most  cases  sufficient  to  establish 
the  fact  that  among  animals  proper — which  are  charac- 
teristically predatory  organisms — the  parasitic  mode  of 
life  is  nearly  always  derived  from  a previous  predatory 
one.  This  appears  to  be  true  also  of  those  Protists 
(or  simplest  living  forms)  which  incline  rather  to  the 
animal  than  the  plant  type.’ 

‘ Anatomy  and  physiology  corroborate  the  indications 
thus  given  by  embryology,  and  all  agree  in  supporting  the 
theory  that  the  parasitic  form  of  life  in  these  cases  has 
been  evolved  from  the  predatory  one.’ 

Apart  from  the  insinuation  that  animals  proper  are 
‘ characteristically  predatoiy  organisms,’  which,  in  the 
light  of  Bio-Economics,  we  may  now  dismiss  as  an 
absurdity,  we  have  here  the  important  recognition  that 
in  the  case  of  the  animals  parasitism  is  very  frequently, 
if  not  generally,  preceded  by  depredation,  i.e.  that  the 
in-feeding  habit  may  become  intensified,  and  thus  lead 
to  the  parasitic  diathesis  proper. 

We  are  told  by  way  of  illustration  that  ‘ the  gasteropod 
molluscs  are  for  the  most  part  herbivorous  or  carnivorous  ; 


EVOLUTION  BY  PARASITISM 


181 


but  a few  species  live  as  parasites  upon  Echinoderms  ’ 
(italics  mine). 

Surely,  then,  at  least  in  the  case  of  the  herbivorous 
species,  it  remains  to  be  seen  whether  they  are  all  alike 
and  necessarily  predaceous,  whether  they  are  ‘ Pflanzen- 
Raubtiere  ’ or  other-wise.  In  any  case  we  cannot 
argue  from  abuse  as  to  use.  Again  I protest  that, 
although  the  ‘ critical  methods  of  embryology  and  of 
morphology  ’ are  useful  genealogically,  unless  they 
include  the  study  of  ‘ natural  gestation,’  they  really 
beg  the  question  of  Orthogenesis,  just  as  much  as 
do  Darwin’s  frequent  references  to  prototypes  and 
‘ dominant  races.’ 

This  is  almost  conceded  by  Darwin,  who  often  refers 
to  ' our  ignorance  of  the  past  history  of  each  species,’ 
speaking  of  the  advent  of  the  mammary  glands,  common 
to  the  whole  class  of  mammals  and  indispensable  for 
their  existence.  They  must  have  been  developed  at  an 
extremely  early  period,  ‘ and  we  can  know  nothing 
positively  about  their  manner  of  development.’  Even 
the  suggestion  of  marsupial  origin  remains  purely 
genealogical,  though  containing  an  adumbration  of 
prolonged  parental  care  and  of  cross-feeding  in  the 
‘ natural  gestation  ’ of  the  mammal. 

On  the  other  hand,  referring  to  certain  parasitic 
peculiarities  distinguishing  certain  groups  of  insects 
from  others,  Darwin  perceives  that  they  represent  a 
kind  of  pseudo-inheritance  quoad  common  progenitor 


182 


EVOLUTION  BY  CO-OPERATION 


(retrograde  metamorphosis — perfectly  distinct  from  the 
primordial  condition  of  their  adult  progenitors). 

The  hair-claspers  of  parasitic  mites  (Acaridse)  ‘ could 
not  have  been  inherited  from  a common  progenitor.’ 
‘ These  organs  must  have  been  independently  developed.’ 
Again,  in  the  curious  case  of  the  Sitaris — a parasitic 
beetle  which  passes  through  certain  unusual  stages  of 
development— he  says  : ‘ Now,  if  an  insect,  undergoing 
transformations  like  those  of  the  Sitaris,  were  to  become 
the  progenitor  of  a whole  new  class  of  insects,  the  course 
of  development  of  the  new  class  would  be  widely  different 
from  that  of  our  existing  insects  ; and  the  first  larval 
stage  certainly  would  not  represent  the  former  condition 
of  any  adult  and  ancient  form.’ 

In  other  words,  this  hypothetical  case  would  show 
that  a parasitic  progenitor  could  not  determine  a whole 
class  of  insects  according  to  any  reliable  degree  of  Ortho- 
genesis, such  as  we  are  happily  accustomed  to,  by  normal 
progenitors.  To  become  such  a progenitor  is  to  be 
compounded  of  forces  opposed  to  those  prevailing  under 
parasitism.  Such  expressions,  therefore,  as  prototype, 
progenitor,  and  ‘ dominant  race  ’ conceal  important 
ancestral  dynamics,  the  potency  of  which  depends 
greatly,  in  my  opinion,  on  the  virtue  of  proper 
cross-feeding. 

I have  already  shown  that  I need  not  confine  myself 
to  rank  parasitism  in  order  to  prove  my  proposition. 

Some  of  Darwin’s  remarks  may  well  be  read  as  a 


EVOLUTION  BY  PARASITISM 


183 


concession  to  the  view  that  carnivorism,  with  its  general 
ill-effects  on  size  and  weight,  with  its  harmful  bio- 
economic  reactions  (its  negative  correlations,  past  and 
present),  eventually  becomes  a bar  to  progressive  evolution. 

Speaking  of  objections  to  his  theory,  in  ‘ The  Origin 
of  Species,’  he  tells  us : 

‘ Oceanic  islands  are  inhabited  by  bats  and  seals, 
but  by  no  terrestrial  mammals  ; yet,  as  some  of  these 
bats  are  peculiar  species,  they  must  have  long  inhabited 
their  present  homes.  Therefore  Sir  C.  Lyell  asks,  and 
assigns  certain  reasons  in  answer,  why  have  not  seals  and 
bats  given  birth  on  such  islands  to  forms  fitted  to  live 
on  the  land  ? But  seals  would  necessarily  be  first 
converted  into  terrestrial  carnivorous  animals  of  con- 
siderable size,  and  bats  into  terrestrial  insectivorous 
animals  ; for  the  former  there  would  be  no  prey  ; for 
the  bats  ground-insects  would  serve  as  food,  but  these 
would  already  be  largely  preyed  on  by  the  reptiles  or 
birds,  -which  first  colonise  and  abound  on  most  oceanic 
islands  ’ (italics  mine). 

Beconversions  as  here  mooted  by  Darwin,  of  course, 
are  entirely  hypothetical,  but  their  consideration  shows 
the  ‘ mis&re  ’ of  in-feeding  from  the  point  of  view  of 
evolution.  It  does  not  seem  to  have  struck  Darwin 
that  the  difficulty  of  reconversion  consisted  primarily 
in  that  loss  of  metabolic  response  and  under-ad- 
equacy of  physiological  force  which  everywhere  result 
from  in-feeding  and  everywhere  render  a progressive 


184 


EVOLUTION  BY  CO-OPERATION 


gestation  impossible — though  with  an  abundance  of 

‘ Prey-’ 

In  a general  way,  however,  he  admits  this  much,  that 
‘ gradations  of  structure,  with  each  stage  beneficial  to 
a changing  species,  will  be  favoured  only  under  certain 
peculiar  conditions.’  Thus  once  again  we  come  across 
that  mysterious  word  ‘ peculiar,’  which  is  to  explain  so 
much,  but  which  in  reality  leaves  the  most  vital  explana- 
tions to  our  imagination.1  This  accommodating  word 
truly  is  the  ‘ catalytic  agent,’  the  philosopher’s  stone, 
which  turns  all  things  into  the  desired  shape  in  Darwinism. 
Instead  of  telling  us  there  and  then — or  for  that  matter 
anywhere  else — what  the  ‘ peculiar  ’ auspicious  circum- 
stances are  which  favour  an  advance  of  type,  Darwin 
in  a trice,  as  if  by  a magic  wand,  transfers  our  attention 
to  those  ‘ peculiar  ’ inauspicious  circumstances  which  we 
have  already  seen  everywhere  to  determine  retrograde 
metamorphoses. 

‘ A strictly  terrestrial  animal,  by  occasionally  hunting 
for  food  in  shallow  water,  then  in  streams  or  lakes,  might 
at  last  be  converted  into  an  animal  so  thoroughly  aquatic 
as  to  brave  the  open  ocean.  But  seals  would  not  find 
on  oceanic  islands  the  conditions  favourable  to  their 
gradual  reconversion  into  a terrestrial  form.’ 

And  thus  Darwin,  instead  of  giving  us  some 
information  about  the  ‘ peculiar  ’ conditions  auspicious 
to  seal  eugenics,  leaves  the  seals  to  their  own  terrible 

1 ‘ What  that  something  is  we  can  hardly  ever  tell,’  says  Darwin. 


EVOLUTION  BY  PARASITISM 


185 


fate.  As  the  terrestrial  organisms,  because  of  the  more 
complex  relations  to  their  organic  and  inorganic  conditions 
of  life,  according  to  Darwin,  enjoy  a quicker  rate  of  change 
than  the  aquatic,  we  can  understand  that  the  seal  is  a 
loser  from  the  point  of  view  of  evolution  by  his  car- 
nivorous habits  barring  the  access  to  the  land. 

Evidently  it  is  difficult,  even  for  the  ingenuity  of 
the  greatest  naturalist — though  but  hypothetically — to 
construct  a progressive  race  without  a due  bio-economic 
foundation,  without  the  basis  of  an  adequate  previous 
‘ natural  gestation.’ 

Evidently  also  it  is  easier  for  organisms,  by  indulgence 
in  retrograde  metamorphoses,  in  prodigal  fashion  to  waste 
the  capital  begotten  by  the  labour  of  their  progenitors 
than  to  become  avatars  or  patriarchs  of  an  enduring 
and  progressive  race.  Broad  is  the  road  that  leadeth  to 
destruction.  The  huge  monsters  of  the  past  have  left 
no  progeny,  and  Darwin  tells  us  : 

‘ It  may  be  asked,  in  ridicule,  whether  I suppose 
that  the  megatherium  and  other  allied  huge  monsters, 
which  formerly  lived  in  South  America,  have  left  behind 
them  the  sloth,  armadillo,  and  ant-eater  as  their  de- 
generate descendants.  This  cannot  for  an  instant  be 
admitted.  These  huge  animals  have  become  wholly 
extinct,  and  have  left  no  progeny.’ 

He  also  tells  us,  without  ever  adducing  the  ‘ peculiar  ’ 
reason  of  these  failures,  that  in  ‘ failing  orders  ’ like  the 
Edentata  of  South  America — with  the  genera  and  species 


186 


EVOLUTION  BY  CO-OPERATION 


decreasing  in  numbers — very  few  of  these  will  leave 
modified  blood-descendants. 

The  almost  universal  extinction  of  monstrous 
organisms,  indeed,  forms  the  great  puzzle  of  Darwinists, 
but  in  reality  is  an  extreme  object  lesson  replete  with 
eugenic  meaning,  whilst  showing  the  utter  futility  of 
‘ Natural  Selection.’ 

These  monsters  (supposedly)  became  -what  they  were 
by  the  ‘ favour  ’ or  ‘ operation  ’ of  Natural  Selection 
(expediency),  which  ‘ principle  ’ has  (supposedly)  for 
ages  been  looking  after  their  welfare,  and,  in  so  doing, 
after  that  of  the  organic  world  as  a whole.  But  suddenly, 
without  any  warning  to  these  proteges  and  without 
apparently  any  provocation  on  their  part,  the  ‘ principle  ’ 
has  left  them  in  the  lurch. 

Why  could  not  the  ‘ principle,’  when  it  suddenly 
shifted  its  favour  to  smaller  forms  (faithful  on  the  whole 
to  cross-feeding  habits),  have  helped  at  least  a few  of  the 
monsters  gradually  to  beget  more  diminutive  progeny  ? 1 

Evidently  Darwinists  have  not  considered  this  ques- 
tion, and  being  moreover  somewhat  in  the  dark  about 
the  inconsistent  behaviour  of  Natural  Selection,  they 
leave  us  to  the  only  supposition  possible,  i.e.  that 

1 Darwin  indeed  hints  elsewhere  (on  the  Geological  Succession  of 
Organic  Beings)  that  lack  of  improvement  according  to  the  principle 
of  ‘ the  all-important  relations  of  organism  to  organism  in  the  struggle 
for  life  ’ means  liability  to  extinction.  But,  as  he  fails  to  show  what 
constitutes  wholesome  biological  relations  and  what  constitutes  genuine 
improvement,  he  leaves  the  problem  of  extinction  open  to  a more  exact 
explanation  such  as  I have  endeavoured  to  set  forth. 


EVOLUTION  BY  PARASITISM 


187 


those  previously  ‘ favoured  ’ monsters  have  perhaps  had 
too  big  a dose  of  this  same  Natural  Selection  (expedient- 
adaptation) — which  we  may  well  understand  they  must 
have  had. 

However,  we  can  leave  it  to  those  Selectionists  still 
possessed  of  some  sense  of  humour  to  draw  the  moral 
from  it  all.  But  now  to  return  to  ‘ Parasitism,  Organic 
and  Social.’ 

We  are  told  that:  ‘Like  all  ento-parasites,  Ento- 
concha  is  an  extremely  degenerate  organism,  so  that 
the  anatomy  of  the  adult  gives  absolutely  no  clue  to 
its  systematic  position.  It  is  only  by  tracing  the 
early  life-history  that  we  are  able  to  discover  that 
here  we  have  a “ prosobranch  ” gasteropod  mollusc 
which  has  been  metamorphosed  by  a parasitic  career.’ 

Surely  such  a parasitic  ‘ career  ’ must  now  be  con- 
sidered as  a rather  undignified  affair,  seeing  it  ends  by 
obliterating  even  our  systematic  classification  ! Even 
‘ Natural  Selection  ’ should  be  ashamed  of  such  an 
unrecognisable  product  ! Nor  is  it  invoked  so  much  now, 
when  the  voluntary  element  in  the  development  of  the 
disease  and  degeneracy  is  coming  ever  more  conspicuously 
to  the  fore. 

As  regards  the  authors’  contention,  however,  that  ‘ the 
mutualist  relation  is  rarely  met  with  except  in  social 
groups,’  I am  bound  to  say  that  my  view  is  the  exact 
opposite,  since  I regard  this  principle  of  mutuality  be- 
tween groups  of  organisms  as  fundamental  and  universal, 


188 


EVOLUTION  BY  CO-OPERATION 


though  it  has  hitherto  sadly  lacked  recognition  by 
naturalists. 

Nothing,  in  fact,  at  the  present  clay  wants  emphasising 
more  than  that  the  whole  organic  world  is  primarily  and 
normally  based  on  mutualist  relations,  and  that  every 
step  that  transgresses  these  relations  leads  towards 
degeneration  and  decline. 

As  regards  the  Evolution  of  Parasitism  in  Social 
Groups  (of  men)  we  are  told  : ‘ In  lowly-organised 

communities  the  majority  must  necessarily  gain  their 
livelihood  either  by  hunting,  by  fishing,  or  by  gathering 
such  food  and  other  supplies  as  are  to  be  had  for  the 
picking  up  ; and  the  number  of  parasitic  and  predatory 
persons  must  be  limited  by  the  number  of  individuals  of 
whom  it  is  possible  to  make  a prey.’ 

We  also  learn  that : ‘ The  transformation  of  a race 
of  predatory  exploiters  into  a race  of  parasites — that  is 
the  whole  history  of  the  Arab  tribes  of  the  Mogreb.’ 

Now,  however,  those  tribes  have  been  broken  up  and 
their  remnants  constitute  those  ‘ unfortunates  whom  the 
cultivators  call  Ben  ramassts,  and  who  have  no  means  of 
livelihood  save  begging,  prostitution,  and  every  variety  of 
crime.  In  this  instance,  then,  the  parasite  is  a predatory 
exploiter  whose  strength  has  been  broken,  who  cannot 
maintain  his  former  character  in  the  presence  of  a changed 
environment.’ 

Concerning  the  atrophy  of  organs  which  is  so  marked 
a characteristic  of  parasitism,  we  are  asked  to  believe  that 


EVOLUTION  BY  PARASITISM 


189 


it  ‘ is  to  be  sought  in  the  operation  of  the  law  of  Natural 
Selection,  favouring  the  survival  of  the  fittest,  that  is 
to  say,  the  best  adapted  to  their  environment.  We 
may  say  that  a disused  organ  becomes  a parasite  upon  the 
organism  as  a whole,  just  as  we  say  that  those  parts  of 
a “ variegated  ” plant  which  are  destitute  of  chlorophyll 
are  parasitic  in  relation  to  the  green  parts.  Now,  as 
soon  as  an  organ  becomes  a surcharge  upon  the  resources 
of  the  organism,  that  organism  is  handicapped  in  the 
struggle  for  existence.  Consequently,  the  atrophy  of  the 
organ  in  question  is  a distinct  gain,  which  Natural  Selection 
tends  to  make  permanent.’ 

This  is  confusion  worse  confounded.  Misuse  is  here 
confounded  with  disuse.  The  true  handicap,  of  course, 
is  misuse  in  the  bio-economic  sense,  and  not  disuse  in  the 
physiological  sense.  Whether  a disused  organ  becomes 
a parasite  upon  the  organism  as  a whole  or  not  depends 
entirely  on  the  nutritional  state  and  the  general  condition 
of  health  of  the  organism. 

The  cancer  cell  is  by  some  writers  supposed  to  be  a 
parasite  upon  other  tissues  of  the  body,  but  a healthy 
body  does  not  allow  the  cells  of  a disused  organ  to  prey  in 
similar  fashion  upon  other  cells. 

Massart  and  Yandervelde  themselves  provide  a number 
of  instances  of  the  development  of  means  of  defence 
against  parasitic  attack,  such  as  (a)  Destruction  of  Para- 
sites, ( b ) Expulsion,  (c)  Incarceration,  (d)  Localisation. 
The  following  is  an  example  of  (c) : ‘ In  the  case  of 


190 


EVOLUTION  BY  CO-OPERATION 


certain  animals — for  instance,  the  gerbil  ( Gerbillus ) and 
the  pouched  marmot  ( Spermatophilus ),  small  rodents 
inhabiting  respectively  Algeria  and  Southern  Eussia — 
it  has  been  proved  that  tubercle  bacilli  are  quickly 
engulfed  by  the  cells.  The  latter  give  forth  a secretion 
which  forms  a hard  case  around  the  bacillus,  and  in  this 
prison  it  finally  decomposes  or  returns  to  its  elements. 
The  incarcerating  process  is  more  completely  affected  by 
the  gerbil  than  by  the  pouched  marmot,  and  this  more 
effectual  imprisonment  is  associated  with  a more  com- 
plete immunity.  We  cannot  doubt,  therefore,  that  it  is 
with  a view  to  self-defence  that  the  organism  imprisons 
the  parasite  in  this  chamber  of  doom — a veritable 
oubliette.’’ 

Disuse  of  an  organ,  therefore,  need  not  have  the 
effect  of  rendering  the  state  of  the  organism  pathological. 
Disuse  may  stand  in  healthy  correlation  with  predominant 
wholesome  use  in  other  parts  of  the  organism  and  with 
increased  bio-economic  usefulness  generally,  in  which  case 
the  whole  constitution  tends  to  become  more  efficient  and 
more  stable,  in  spite  of  a local  (progressive)  atrophy.  In 
the  case  of  the  variegated  plant,  however,  we  saw  that  its 
general  condition  was  one  of  helplessness  and  diminished 
vitality. 

The  condition  of  a parasite  generally  being  one  of 
surfeit — ‘ parasitism  means  not  only  abundant,  but  rich 
and  stimulating  nutrition,’  according  to  Geddes  and 
Thomson — there  ought,  therefore,  so  far  as  quantity  of 


EVOLUTION  BY  PARASITISM 


191 


nutrition  and  a promiscuous  pabulum  for  ‘ digestive  trans- 
formation ’ are  concerned,  to  be  a sufficiency  of  resources 
for  more  organs  rather  than  a deficiency  for  existing 
organs.  A loss  of  vital  organs  and  what  it  implies  in 
correlated  changes,  however,  cannot  be  accounted  a gain 
except  in  mere  expediency.  From  every  other  point  of 
view  it  is  a horrid  waste,  a shocking  loss  all  round.  It  is 
the  loss  of  vital  correlations  and  the  resulting  limita- 
tion which  are  tantamount  to  a diminution  of  life  and 
of  those  true  evolutionary  resources  without  which  an 
organism  cannot  maintain  either  status  or  structure. 

Nutritive  fluids  there  are  in  parasitism  in  plenty  ; 
but  they  lack  quality  and  they  are  directed  by  other 
stimulations  than  those  which  result  from  work  and 
reciprocity,  and  hence  they  no  longer  go  to  support  the 
media  (or  organs)  which  used  to  serve  the  purposes  of 
bio-economic  reciprocity.  There  is  an  under-adequacy  of 
nutritional  force,  which  now  Hows  in  abnormal  channels. 
The  ‘ nutrition-currents,’  as  Professor  Weismann  terms 
them,  with  their  exciting  qualities,  reach  and  affect  the 
germ-cells,  stimulating  them  to  precocious  maturation, 
which  accelerates  the  atrophy  from  disuse.  The  shaping 
of  what  organisation  remains  is  now7  a matter  of  abnormal 
stimulation  combined  with  environmental  expediency. 
Hypertrophy  of  the  digestive  and  sexual  organs  is  thus 
usually  the  ally  of  expediency.  If  Natural  Selection  is 
the  agency  favouring  such  degeneracy,  again  I say  it 
cannot  have  played  a positive  part  in  evolution. 


192 


EVOLUTION  BY  CO-OPERATION 


At  a late  stage  in  this  interesting  book  we  are  intro- 
duced to  the  ‘ law  of  compensation,’  which  lawr  goes  a 
long  way  to  support  my  theory  as  regards  correlations 
in  general  and  as  regards  the  pathology  of  parasitism  in 
particular  : ‘ In  accordance  with  the  law  of  compensa- 
tion,’ says  Schoeffle,  4 parasites,  since  they  do  not  expend 
much  energy  in  muscular  or  nervous  activities,  should  be 
found  to  be  addicted  to  excesses  of  drinking,  eating,  and 
sexuality.’ 

We  are  told  : 4 Ought  we  not,  then,  to  infer,  from  this 
tendency  to  abuse  of  the  sexual  function,  that  parasitic 
organisms  and  classes  will  be  more  prolific  than  their 
victims,  will  multiply  more  rapidly  than  the}',  and  cause 
a steady  augmentation  in  the  number  of  the  degenerate  ? ’ 

Messrs.  Massart  and  Yandervelde  themselves  answer 
the  question,  but  the  only  consolation  that  they  can 
offer  is  that  luckily  numerous  factors  operate  against  the 
too  rapid  increase  of  parasites,  social  and  other.  The 
chief  of  these  factors  are  eventual  reproductive  incapacity 
and  a high  rate  of  mortality,  and,  in  human  society, 
Malthusian  practices,  all  pointing  to  the  fact  that  parasit- 
ism results  in  rank  pathology  and  in  the  end  provides  its 
own  punishment. 

We  thus  reach  the  subject  of  human  degeneracy,  which 
is  strictly  parallel  to  that  in  the  lower  worlds  of  life,  and 
all  that  I have  written  applies  with  equal  force  to  human 
relations. 

If  we  are  now,  in  the  light  of  our  bio-economic  theory, 


EVOLUTION  BY  PARASITISM 


198 


justified  in  viewing  the  atrophy  produced  by  renunciation 
of  function  in  parasitism  as  a reversal  of  the  normal 
order  of  progress,  we  arrive  again  at  the  indispensable 
conclusion  that  adequate  activity — work  in  the  widest 
sense — is  the  only  true  measure  of  organic  values.  It  is 
work  that  ultimately  determines  both  forms  and  values. 
All  the  diverse  forms  of  tissues,  organs  and  entire  animals, 
according  to  Professor  G.  C.  Bourne,1  ‘ are  but  the 
expression  of  an  infinite  number  of  variations  of  a single 
theme,  that  theme  being  cell-division,  multiplication,  and 
differentiation.’  ‘ We  shall  agree,’  says  Professor  Bourne, 
‘ at  the  bottom  production  and  change  of  form  are  due 
to  increase  or  diminution  of  the  activities  of  groups  of 
cells,  and  we  are  aware  that  in  the  higher  animals  change 
of  structure  is  not  altogether  a local  affair,  but  carries 
with  it  certain  consequences  in  the  nature  of  correlated 
changes  in  other  parts  of  the  body.  If  we  are  to  make  any 
progress  in  the  study  of  morphogeny,  we  ought  to  have 
as  exact  ideas  as  possible  as  to  what  we  mean  when  we 
speak  of  the  activities  of  cells  and  of  correlation.’  Pro- 
fessor Bourne  thus  refers  us  to  physiology,  which  I affirm, 
however,  is  incomplete  without  a knowledge  of  the  signi- 
ficance of  nutritional  amphimixis  and  of  feeding  habits 
(with  their  correlations  in  the  bio-economic  field). 

Having  shown  the  value  of  these  factors,  I assert 
that  a bio-economic  theme,  viz.  work,  in  turn  underlies 
the  single  physiological  theme.  It  is  work  that  converts 
1 British  Association  at  Sheffield,  1910. 


194 


EVOLUTION  BY  CO-OPERATION 


energy  into  biological  utilities.  (In  Professor  A.  B. 
Macallum’s  view  ‘ the  living  cell  is  but  a machine,  an 
engine  for  transforming  potential  into  kinetic  and  other 
forms  of  energy  through  or  by  changes  in  its  surface 
energy.’)  It  is  work  that  produces  not  only  form  but 
also  the  transmutation  of  form.  It  is  work  that  produces 
relations  and  correlations.  It  is  work  that  produces 
evolution  and  keeps  it  going.  When  all  is  said  concerning 
surface  tension,  and  regarding  enzymes  and  hormones  as 
ultimate  agents  in  the  production  of  form  ; when  all  is  said 
respecting  the  frequent  destruction — and  even  necessary 
destruction — of  forms,  let  us  remember  that  every  day, 
from  sunrise  until  sunset,  myriads  of  (plant)  laboratories, 
factories,  workshops  and  industries  all  the  world  over, 
on  land  and  in  the  sea,  in  the  earth  and  on  the  surface 
soil,  are  incessantly  occupied,  adding  each  its  little  contri- 
bution to  the  general  fund  of  organic  wealth,  organic 
goodwill,  and  organic  solidarity.  They  are  busy  in  the 
production  of  organic  utilities,  not  only  for  present  use  in 
the  world  of  life,  but  also  for  use  by  future  generations. 
The  vast  majority  of  these  toilers  know  not  why  they 
work,  and,  in  the  spirit  of  the  true  gentleman,  they  do  not 
clamour  for  undue  rewards  or  for  relief  from  their 
burdens.  Humbly  and  self-denyingly  they  toil  on,  as  if 
their  greatest  happiness  and  privilege  consisted  in  the 
production  of  a superabundance  of  material,  and  their 
aim  were  the  avoidance  and  removal  of  all  want  in  the 
organic  world. 


EVOLUTION  BY  PARASITISM 


195 


In  the  majority  of  cases  the  altruism  is  carried  so  far 
as  to  amount  to  an  invitation  to  those  who  need  it  to 
relieve  them  from  the  burden  of  the  superabundantly 
produced  food-material  (‘  Love-Foods  ’) — the  Natural 
thus  appearing,  in  Chambers’  words,  ‘ to  sink  into  and 
merge  in  a higher  Artificial.’  For  thousands  of  years  the 
earthworm  has  been  ploughing  the  land  for  us,  nor  have 
we  yet  heard  of  a strike  on  the  part  of  this  humble  but 
indispensable  fellow-creature  for  a higher  wage.  If  the 
‘ gentlemanly  ’ instincts  had  not  in  the  long  course  of  ages 
far  outweighed  the  selfish  propensities — if  the  evolutionary 
process  had  not  thus  been  dominated  by  co-operation  and 
mutuality  rather  than  by  the  ‘ Struggle  for  Existence,’ — 
the  organic  world  could  never  have  attained  its  present 
position. 


INDEX 


Adequacy  of  food,  19,  65,  68 
et  seq.,  89,  159  et  seq.,  166  et  seq., 
189 

Amphimixis,  52,  67,  68,  93,  155 
et  seq.,  162,  169,  171,  193 

Analysis,  biological,  11 

Ancestral  dynamics,  182 

Antaeus,  161 

Antithetic  developments,  6,  8,  70, 
78 

Ants,  152 

Argyll,  Duke  of,  141  et  seq. 

Autonomy,  29,  63,  106,  111 


Bacon  on  impunity,  29 
Bacteria,  49,  150,  177 
Bear-food,  59 
Behaviour,  43,  58,  59 
Ben  ramasses,  188 
Bio-chemical  antagonism,  72 
Botrytis,  179 

Bourne,  Prof.  G.  C.,  on  form- 
production,  193 
Breeding,  selective,  26 
in-,  63 

Butler,  Samuel,  97,  106,  109 


Chambers,  Robert,  on  gestation, 
39,  161 

on  the  cuckoo,  102 
carnivorism,  128 
blemishes  in  nature,  132 
Gasteropoda,  164 
Cephalopoda,  164 
retrogression,  164 


on  super-adequacy,  165 
batrachians,  166 
Chlorosis,  178 
Commensals,  175 
Compensation,  law  of,  22,  192 
Cope,  on  degeneration,  61 
on  non-specialisation,  80 
descent,  169 

Correlations,  90,  104,  131,  134  et 
seq.,  180 

Cross-feeding,  19,  67,  128,  166,  173 
Cross-fertilisation,  50,  51,  52,  56, 
154 

Cuckoo,  130  et  seq. 

Currency,  54,  65,  71 


Darwin,  Charles,  on  cause  of 
survival,  1 
on  population,  1 

standard  of  highness,  11 
conditions  of  existence,  14 
mutual  relations,  14,  31 
importance  of  habit,  16,  65 
in-breeding,  21 
famine  and  death,  23 
usefulness,  25 
selective  analogies,  26 
retardation  of  reproduc- 
tion, 35 

advantage  of  diversifica- 
tion, 44 

self-fertilisation,  53 
Linaria  vulgaris,  53,  156 
significance  of  structure,  55 
distribution  of  fresh-water 
plants,  58 


198 


INDEX 


Darwin,  Charles — continued. 

on  complex  contingencies,  59 
carnivorous  quadrupeds, 59 
struggle  for  existence,  95 
et  seq. 

effects  of  abundant  food, 
134 

common  descent  of  plant 
and  animal,  152 
plant-eugenics,  154 
extinction,  172 
prototypes  and  domin- 
ance, 168,  181 
mammary  glands,  181 
parasitic  mites,  182 
sitaris,  182 
failing  orders,  185 
Darwinism,  on  economies,  16 
on  factors  of  production,  17 
destruction,  18 
universe,  22 

a doctrine  of  expediency,  88, 
97 

lack  of  persistent  prin- 
ciple, 97 

on  variations,  107 
a creed,  107,  116 
Davenport  Hill,  M.,  on  flightless 
birds,  170 

Degeneration,  11,  14,  28,  60,  62, 
64,  71,  94,  110,  172  et  seq.,  177 
Dendrocygna  autumnalis,  79 
Deperet,  Charles,  on  slow  trans- 
formations, 74  et  seq. 
on  aberrations,  75 
Diathesis,  6,  21,  76,  179,  180 
parasitic,  76 
Dimorphism,  6,  9,  78 
Dissociation,  71 

Dixon,  Charles,  on  Natural 
Selection,  95 
Drosera,  35 

Drummond,  Henry,  on  altruism, 
2,  17 

on  love-foods,  20 
struggle  for  life,  38 
moral  order,  131 


Elaboration  of  food,  174 
Elephants,  77,  128 
Endosperm  of  Indian  com,  67,  68 
Eugenics,  11,  26,  154 
Euripides,  55 

Extinction,  6,  77,  108,  172 
Extreme  determination,  144 


Fechner  on  reciprocal  differentia- 
tion, 96 

on  disharmonies,  99 

reciprocal  relations,  157 
et  seq. 
reality,  159 

Fertilisation,  43,  51,  68,  157,  169 
Flourens,  111 

Food,  co-operative  production,  14, 
33,  40,  44,  50,  157 


Geddes  and  Thomson  on  fitness, 
37 

on  the  cuckoo,  102 
parasitism,  190 
Gerbil,  190 

Goebel  on  quality  of  food,  64 
Goette  on  reproduction  and 
death,  38 

Grant  Allen  on  cross-fertilisation, 
50 

Gresham’s  law  of  currency,  71, 
135 

Gyrodactylus,  35 


Habit,  13,  16,  43,  63  et  seq.,  103, 
119,  131,  167 

Hatschek  on  function  of  fertilisa- 
tion, 52 

Hesperornis,  171 
Horse,  45,  80 

Hutchinson,  Horace,  on  amity  in 
nature,  147 
Hutton,  F.  W.,  128 
Huxley  on  danger  of  dogmatism, 
24 


INDEX 


199 


Huxley  on  Darwin’s  selective 
analogy  a 25 
on  ethics,  40 

population,  100 
Hymenoptera,  4,  7,  91 


In-feeding,  19  et  seq.,  63,  65,  73, 
77,  168,  173 

Infant-destruction,  18,  19,  21 
Instability,  11 
Interdependence,  45 
Irreversibility,  75 


James,  Prof.,  on  reality,  158 

Kent,  C.  B.  Roylance,  133,  147 
Kerner,  on  reciprocity  in  nature, 
14 

on  poisonous  plants,  54 
Koran,  73 

Kropotkin,  P.,  on  altruism,  17 


Lankester,  Sir  E.  Ray,  on  mutual 
service,  2 

on  man’s  vegetarian  ancestors, 
12 

degeneration,  60 
extinction,  66 
correlations,  134  et  seq. 
longevity,  156 

Leduc,  S.,  on  Synthetic  Biology,  71 
Lichens,  49,  81 

Lindsay,  Dr.  A.,  on  Darwinism,  30 
on  medical  science,  126 
digestion,  130 

Long,  Prof.  James,  on  mineral 
fertilisers,  155 


Macallum,  Prof.  A.  B.,  on  cell 
mechanics,  194 
Maeterlinck  on  apiens,  4 

on  evolution  of  the  bee,  7 


Malthus,  17,  18,  32,  40 
Mammalia,  3,  82,  181 
Marriner,  S.  R.,  on  Australian 
Kea,  66 

Massart,  J.,  and  Vandervelde,  on 
parasitism,  172  et  seq. 

Maupas  on  conjugation,  51 

on  reproduction  and  food,  89 
Mendelism,  12 

Metabolic  response,  95,  146,  183 
Metabolism,  abnormal,  20,  33,  79, 
160,  179 
Miastor,  35 

Mitchell,  Dr.  Charles.,  on  infancy 
of  animals,  37 
Mushrooms,  gigantic,  171 
Mutualism,  12,  21,  47,  95,  150, 
154,  187 

Mutual  pressure,  15,  149 


Natural  gestation,  26,  29,  32,  38, 
167,  185 

Natural  Selection,  24,  26,  85,  87, 
114,  128,  132,  145,  176,  186, 
189 

Nietzsche,  130 

Nutrition,  2,  15  et  seq.,  20,  65,  78, 
140,  144,  168,  173 
Nutrition  and  Evolution,  162 


Organisation,  41-42 
Orthogenesis,  168,  181,  182 
Over-specialisation,  77 


Parasitic  plants,  86,  89,  163 
Parasitism,  7,  24,  34,  75,  172 
Parthenogenesis,  35,  90,  97 
Pathogenic  organisms,  71,  74 
Pelvis,  162 

Pflanzen-Raubtiere,  128,  135 
Plato  on  Eugenics,  126 
Pliny  on  reproduction,  38 
Political  Economy,  17,  31,  33,  46, 
55,  60 


200 


INDEX 


Production,  the  measure  of 
status,  1,  5,  48-50 
Punnett,  Prof.,  on  effects  of 
domestication,  79-80 


Reciprocal  differentiation,  1,  96, 
98,  120 

Redundancy,  6,  18,  33,  36,  100 
Reproduction,  significance  of,  38, 
39,  50,  68,  89 

Retrogression,  6,  12,  100,  166 
Rickets,  72 

Saprophytes,  173  et  seq. 

Self -fertilisation,  52,  56,  90 
Seneca  on  man’s  place  in  the 
universe,  46 

Seton,  E.  Thompson,  38 
Solomon,  King,  on  animal  wisdom, 
131,  133 

Sorley,  Prof.  W.  R.,  on  methods  of 
interpretation,  131 
Spencer,  H.,  on  gratis  benefits,  44 
on  variations,  97 

plant  contrivances,  152 
Status,  3,  49,  52 

Stevenson,  R.  L.,  on  kinship  of 
life,  30 

Survival  and  Reproduction,  104 
Symbiosis,  14,  150 


Tadpole,  49,  165  el  seq. 

Taylor,  A.,  on  the  cuckoo.  103 
Trade,  41,  47,  48,  53 
Tremaux  on  soil,  160 
Tubercle  bacillus,  177 

Usefulness,  5,  10,  27,  37,  38 
53,  55,  61,  105  et  seq. 

Uxkiill,  J.  von,  9 

Variations,  97,  105 
Variegation,  178 
4 Vestiges  of  Creation,’  118,  169 

Wallace,  Dr.  A.  Russel,  on  wind- 
fertilisation,  56 
on  destruction,  57 
Lantana  mixta,  58 
simplicity  of  Darwinism, 
108 

natural  selection,  108 
longevity  of  nut  trees,  156 
Weismann,  Prof.,  191 
Woods  Hutchinson,  Dr.,  126,  129, 
147-151,  158 
Woodpecker,  167 
Woodward,  A.  S.,  on  extinction 
and  size,  77 

Work,  1,  5,  19,  40,  44,  46,  56,  64, 
193,  194 


PRINTED  by 

8POTTISWOODE  AND  CO.  LTD,,  COLCHESTER 
LONDON  AND  ETON 


Date  Due 


T)!P  pp  jjiy 

1 

Form  335— 40M— 6-40 


